device_health

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

With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It discloses that it checks health and includes recovery steps, but it is unclear whether 'recovery steps' are merely shown or executed, and whether the tool has side effects or requires special permissions. This ambiguity is significant for a diagnostic tool, especially when a sibling tool (fix_device_health) suggests a separate fix operation.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the main action front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Although an output schema is present (so return values may be covered), the description lacks crucial context: what 'comprehensive' includes, whether it covers non-iOS platforms, and how it relates to fix_device_health. The tool's complexity and the presence of closely related siblings demand more behavioral and usage context, which is absent.

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 schema has one required parameter 'device' with zero description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what 'device' refers to (e.g., device ID, name, or serial) or provide any format hints. Since the schema provides no semantic meaning, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter effectively undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('device health check') and adds scope ('comprehensive'). It also provides concrete examples (iOS Appium/WDA status, active session details, recovery steps), which helps distinguish it from siblings like fix_device_health. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or contrast with similar tools like get_phone_state.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions iOS specifics but does not state whether this is the go-to for diagnostics or when to prefer fix_device_health. Usage is implied at best, and no exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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