adb_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The description does not disclose any side effects, whether it overwrites existing remote files, whether it requires the device to be connected/authorized, or what happens on failure. For a tool that modifies device filesystem state, the absence of such information is a meaningful gap.

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 sentence that is direct and free of filler. Every word earns its place. This is appropriately minimal for a simple file-copy operation.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't cover destination behavior (overwrite semantics), prerequisites (connected device), or common failure modes (nonexistent local path, permission denied). Sibling verbs like adb_install and adb_uninstall suggest a broader device-management context, and this simple description provides insufficient guidance for an agent deciding how to use it safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% — the 'local' and 'remote' parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The description says 'local file' for local and 'to the device' for remote, which partially clarifies direction, but does not elaborate on path formats (device-relative vs absolute) or how the serial parameter interacts with multi-device setups beyond what the schema's serial description already states. The description adds some directional meaning but compensates only partially for the coverage gap.

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?

Description states a clear verb+resource pair: 'Copy a local file to the device.' This is specific and unambiguous for an adb push operation. It distinguishes from sibling adb_pull (which copies device-to-local) though not explicitly naming it, and is clearly distinct from shell, reboot, and other sibling verbs.

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 (when you want to transfer a local file to the device), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives. With sibling tools like adb_pull and adb_install nearby, explicit guidance about distinguishing push from pull would strengthen this dimension, but the direction of transfer is clear enough to infer the use case.

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