checkup

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

The annotations already declare that the tool is not read-only and is destructive, and the description usefully clarifies the destructive behavior: clean=true clears app caches with no data loss. It still does not cover auth requirements, runtime behavior, or whether settings outside caches are modified.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the tool, lists the checked areas, then explains the only parameter's side effect. Every clause earns its place without redundant or repetitive text.

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 simple one-parameter checkup tool with strong annotations, the description covers what is inspected and what clean=true changes. It could say more about what the checkup returns or whether it requires an active device connection, but the core calling information is present.

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?

There is one parameter, clean, and the schema provides no description for it. The description compensates fully by explaining that clean=true clears app caches and that this causes no data loss, which is exactly the semantic detail an agent needs.

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 identifies a phone checkup and enumerates the specific areas checked: system, security patch, battery, storage, memory, unofficial apps, wireless debugging, and accessibility. That makes the resource and action clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as info, logs, or apps.

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 this is a diagnostic checkup but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like info, logs, apps, or settings. It also does not state prerequisites such as device connectivity or permissions.

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