list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The wording makes clear this is a read-only enumeration and clarifies that both emulators and physical devices are covered, but it says nothing about side effects (e.g. whether it starts the adb server) or the shape of the response.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key qualifiers ('connected', 'emulators and physical', 'available AVDs') are packed in without redundancy.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells an agent enough to call it and to know what categories of results to expect. A brief note on return format (e.g. device IDs and states) would make it fully complete.

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 correctly reflects a no-argument call and adds the useful scoping note that both connected devices and available AVDs are included.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and two concrete resources ('connected adb devices' and 'available AVDs'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like start_emulator or list_dev_apps, which keeps it from a 5.

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 usage context is only implied by the phrase 'connected' and 'available' – an agent can infer this is a discovery step before start_emulator or launch_app, but nothing states when to call it versus those alternatives or any preconditions.

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