Enhanced ADB MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Force stop' implies a destructive, immediate termination, but the description doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether this affects device stability, what happens to background processes, or typical response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 destructive tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about parameters, behavioral implications, and usage guidelines. The output schema helps with return values, but the description should do more to compensate for other gaps.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about the two parameters (package_name and device_serial), their formats, examples, or relationships. It doesn't compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to guess parameter meanings from their titles alone.

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 'Force stop an app' clearly states the action (force stop) and target (an app), making the purpose immediately understandable. It uses a specific verb that distinguishes it from gentler app management tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_app_data' or 'uninstall_app' which also affect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the app to be running), consequences (like potentially losing unsaved data), or when other tools like 'clear_app_data' or 'uninstall_app' might be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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