adb_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. For a read-only listing tool, the lack of annotations is mitigated somewhat by the obvious non-destructive nature implied in the description, but it doesn't add behavioral context beyond what's in the name/schema. No risk disclosed, but for listing devices the risk is inherently low.

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 concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and expected output. Zero wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description mentions the output fields (serial + state) which is helpful. However, it doesn't specify potential failure states (e.g., what happens when no devices are connected) or whether the output format is plain text vs structured. Aside from the output field hint, it's fairly minimal.

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, so there's nothing to document. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the output (serial + state) rather than 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?

The description 'List connected ADB devices with serial + state' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (ADB devices) with clear output scope (serial + state). It distinguishes from siblings like adb_screenshot or adb_reboot, which are clearly different operations.

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?

There's no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain that this is a diagnostic/prerequisite step before connecting or that it verifies availability of devices. No exclusions or alternative tool references provided.

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