List Connected Devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states the scope ('connected via ADB') and the action is inherently read-only, but it does not mention output format, failure modes, or whether it includes offline/unauthorized devices. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, direct sentence conveys the entire functional scope without wasted words. The key resource and method are front-loaded, making the definition easy to scan and interpret.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. There are no complex inputs, side effects, or sibling ambiguities requiring additional explanation.

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 has zero properties and 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('Android devices/emulators connected via ADB'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling database-oriented tools, which all operate on packages, databases, tables, and queries.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing ADB-connected devices, providing enough context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute for device enumeration, so the usage context is effectively clear.

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