finger_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals the underlying ADB command, confirms it is a simulation action, and notes the emulator-only restriction. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is sufficient to understand what the tool does and its context, though it could mention that it requires a prior fingerprint touch to be meaningful.

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 that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the action and underlying command, the second provides usage context and restrictions. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, how it relates to a sibling tool, when to use it (finger-up event flows), and the emulator-only constraint. There are no gaps in completeness for this tool's complexity.

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 100% coverage for the single optional 'serial' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description does not add any additional context or nuance about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 the action ('lift the simulated finger off the sensor') and the resource (finger on sensor). It explicitly positions itself as the complement to 'fingerprint_touch', distinguishing it from that sibling tool. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 states it is for 'flows that watch for the finger-up event' and notes it is 'emulator-only'. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly list conditions where it should not be used or mention alternatives beyond the stated complement.

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