push_file

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 the transfer direction but does not mention whether existing files on the device are overwritten, whether permissions are required, or what happens if the remote path does not exist. For a mutation-related tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the operation is stated first, followed by the parameter mapping. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The tool is simple with fully described parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the basics of invocation. However, lacking annotations, it omits behavior around overwrites, error conditions, and prerequisites. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent facing a real device state.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explicitly maps 'local' to the file path on the local machine and 'remote' to the device path, adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties. It could add more detail about path formats, but the core semantics are clearly conveyed.

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 names a specific verb ('Pushes') and resource ('file from the local machine to the connected Android device'), making the operation unmistakable. The directionality of the transfer clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_file. No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 use when a file needs to be copied from the local machine to the device, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as pull_file for the reverse direction or execute_adb_shell for shell-based transfer. Usage context is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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