open_dev_menu

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool opens the dev menu via KEYCODE_MENU, implies it's reliable, and hints it may be non-destructive by mentioning follow-up inspection/selection rather than direct result. However, it could be slightly more explicit about whether it waits for the menu to appear or returns immediately.

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, zero waste. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the action and reliability, the second gives follow-up guidance. No filler, perfectly front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and what to do after. The sibling list contains many UI tools, and the description clarifies its unique role among them.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the `serial` parameter well. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details but does set broader context (target device from foreground app). Baseline 3, bumped to 4 because the description effectively compensates by contrasting with a sibling tool and explaining the tool's purpose, adding value beyond the schema's dry field description.

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+resource: 'Open the React Native dev menu (KEYCODE_MENU) on the foreground app', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like `reload_app` or `launch_app`. It directly states what the tool does and unlike the sibling tools, it's tailored for a specific use case.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('the reliable way to reach a dev build's Reload/Debug JS Remotely/etc. options when reload_app's broadcast doesn't apply') and provides follow-up instructions ('Follow with tap_on_text or describe_ui to pick a menu item'), giving clear context on when it's appropriate vs alternatives.

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