send_sms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden to disclose behavior. It reveals the low-level implementation ('adb emu sms send') and the emulator-only constraint, but does not clarify whether this is a destructive action (overwrites the last received SMS?), whether it requires any preconditions, or what happens if the emulator is not available. The description does not contradict any annotations because there are none.

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 wasted tokens. Every sentence serves a purpose: first sentence states the operation and use-case, second sentence clarifies required parameters with an example. Ideal length for a simple tool.

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 2-required-param tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, use-case, constraints (emulator-only), and required inputs. However, completeness is slightly limited by the lack of behavioral transparency around error cases or side-effects (e.g., what happens if the emulator is offline).

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 3 parameters. The description mentions 'Pass a sender number (from) and the message text (e.g. the code)', which adds a typical usage example but does not add new constraints or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Deliver an incoming SMS to the emulator (adb emu sms send)') and clearly identifies the resource and use-case (OTP/2FA flows). It distinguishes this from any sibling tool by calling out the emulator-only constraint.

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 identifies the primary use-case ('drive OTP / 2FA flows without a second phone') and notes the emulator-only limitation, which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not describe when NOT to use it (e.g., physical devices) or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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