list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but omits critical behavioral details: whether it requires ADB connectivity, how it handles offline devices, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of device IDs, names, status), or if there are any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects like output format, dependencies (e.g., ADB), or error conditions. For a simple list tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold but leaves room for improvement.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's no need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('List') and the target resources ('connected Android devices and emulators'). It precisely distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_avds' (which lists emulator definitions) or 'get_device_info' (which retrieves detailed information about a specific device).

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 implies usage context (when you need to see available Android devices/emulators), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_device_info' for detailed data or 'list_avds' for emulator definitions. It lacks any 'when-not-to-use' or prerequisite information.

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