run_adb

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns stdout and requires adb on PATH, but does not disclose that adb commands can have side effects (e.g., install, push) or that some commands like logcat may run indefinitely. It also doesn't mention how stderr or exit codes are handled.

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 three short sentences that lead with the core action, then enumerate use cases, and finally state a prerequisite. Every sentence is purposeful and there is no 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?

The tool is a simple pass-through to adb, and the description covers its purpose, provides examples, and notes a prerequisite. It also states the return value (stdout). However, it omits potential pitfalls like long-running commands and error handling, but these are not critical for a basic executor.

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 fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The description includes examples in the schema's command parameter, but the tool description itself adds no further parameter semantics.

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 tool executes adb commands and returns stdout, distinguishing it from sibling tools such as run_git, run_gradle, and run_bash. It provides concrete examples of adb subcommands, making the tool's purpose 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 explicitly lists common use cases ('Use for: adb shell, adb logcat, ...'), giving clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool names imply this.

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