adb_top

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a non-destructive read ('snapshot') but omits details like required permissions (e.g., root), whether the tool modifies system state, or what the output format looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters) without losing conciseness. It earns a 4 for being efficient but not maximally informative.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the output format or edge cases (e.g., what happens if device is not specified). Completeness is moderate; a score of 3 reflects that while it covers the basic purpose, it lacks details to fully guide an agent.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'count' and 'device'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get current CPU and memory usage snapshot' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU and memory usage snapshot'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'adb_perf_snapshot' by focusing narrowly on CPU and memory, not overall performance.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'adb_device_info' or 'adb_battery'). It lacks context for prerequisites, optimal scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent uninformed about appropriate usage.

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