Enhanced ADB MCP Server

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 mentions the effect ('like fresh install') but omits critical details: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., root access), if it's reversible (likely not), potential side effects (e.g., loss of user data), or rate limits. For a destructive operation, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Clear all data for an app') and adds a clarifying analogy without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description fails to address key aspects like behavioral risks, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'an app' but doesn't clarify the 'package_name' parameter (e.g., format like 'com.example.app') or the optional 'device_serial' (e.g., for targeting specific devices in multi-device setups). No parameter details are provided beyond the tool's general purpose.

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 clearly states the action ('Clear all data') and target resource ('for an app'), with a helpful analogy ('like fresh install') that clarifies the effect. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'uninstall_app' or 'force_stop_app', which would require more specific language about data vs. app removal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'uninstall_app' (removes the app entirely) or 'force_stop_app' (stops the app without clearing data). The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed) or typical use cases (e.g., resetting app state for testing).

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