previewapk_list_devices

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the return contents, which is the key behavioral fact for a zero-argument discovery tool. It does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated, but for a simple read-only enumeration the disclosed output shape covers most of what an agent needs.

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 tight sentences with no waste: the first declares the resource and its returned fields, the second front-loads the ordering instruction before the chaining detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and explaining the role of the result in the wider tool chain. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and use the output.

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. The description adds genuine cross-tool semantics by explaining that the chosen device's name or id becomes the 'device' argument on the other tools, which is information no schema field conveys.

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 the devices on this account') and enumerates the fields returned (name, id, profile, Android version, status, attached app). It does not name the nearby sibling previewapk_use_device, which also deals with device selection, so sibling differentiation is only implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition ('when the account may have more than one device') and tells the agent to call it FIRST, plus how to chain the result into other tools. It never states a when-not case or names an alternative (e.g. previewapk_use_device) for when a device is already known.

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