adb_start_intent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It notes this is 'advanced' and passes 'raw am args', implying it bypasses validation and can start arbitrary activities, which is meaningful context. However, it doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g., crashes if intent malformed, no error handling) or what happens with invalid args.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The 'advanced' flag, the raw-args note, and a concrete example all pack maximum signal into minimal length. Front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, flat schema, no output schema) the description is reasonably complete for the core use case. However, for an 'advanced' raw-intent tool with no annotations and no output schema, it could add a warning about arbitrary-target risk, exit code/return behavior, or mention when it's inappropriate (e.g., use adb_launch for simple package launches). Gaps exist but the description covers the essential calling pattern.

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 coverage is 50%: 'args' is documented only by type (array of strings) with no description, while 'serial' has a description. The example clarifies that args are raw am arguments (e.g., '-n','pkg/.Activity'), adding value beyond the schema, but it doesn't fully document all the forms args can take or the format expectations beyond the single example.

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 states it fires a generic Android intent via `am start` and that it's 'advanced' requiring raw am args. It clearly uses a specific verb+resource (fire intent via am start), and distinguishes itself as the raw/generic path among siblings like adb_launch and adb_open_url, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 it is the advanced/generic tool among a large family of adb tools, and the example clarifies it expects window-mapper-style raw args like ['-n','pkg/.Activity']. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over adb_launch or adb_open_url, nor any exclusions or safety cautions for the advanced mode.

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