List ADB devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical side-effect profile: the call is non-mutating (selection unchanged) and does not observe the UI, so an agent knows it is a safe, idempotent read. It stops short of describing the return shape or behavior when no devices are attached.

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 sentence with the affirmative action front-loaded and the disqualifiers trailing. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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, annotation-free, output-schema-free read tool, this covers the essentials the agent needs: what it lists and what it will not disturb. The only missing piece is an explicit cue for when to call it versus the other phone_* tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level, and it correctly does not spend words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List connected ADB devices") and adds the scope qualifier that separates it from siblings: it does not change the selection and does not dump the UI, implicitly distinguishing it from phone_connect and phone_observe. An agent can identify it without opening any schema.

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 negative constraints ("without changing the current selection or dumping the UI") imply this is a passive inspection call, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for phone_devices versus phone_connect or phone_observe. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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