adb_test_gen_from_ui

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes tapping, screenshotting, and crash detection, which are clear. But it does not discuss side effects on app state, permissions needed, or potential destructiveness. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each serving a purpose. No wasted words. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers input and output (workflow JSON). However, it does not explain limitations (e.g., only visible elements, what defines 'interactive'), or the workflow format details. Given no output schema, more information would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'used for logcat filtering and crash detection' for packageName, but it largely mirrors the schema descriptions without deeper semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it analyzes the screen, generates a test workflow tapping each interactive element, takes screenshots, and verifies no crash. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the output is compatible with adb_workflow_run and by contrasting with adb_test_gen_from_intents.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you need to test UI interactions and generate a workflow. It mentions the output is for adb_workflow_run, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among many sibling screen/test tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.