Enhanced ADB MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without details on permissions needed, output format, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves accessing system-level data.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (likely involves system diagnostics), lack of annotations, and an output schema (which helps), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but fails to provide context on usage, behavior, or parameters, leaving gaps that the output schema alone cannot fully address.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Since there is only one parameter and the schema lacks descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description does not add value but also does not mislead given the minimal parameter count.

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 'Get ANR (Application Not Responding) traces' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('ANR traces'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what ANR traces are or how they differ from other diagnostic tools like 'get_crash_logs' or 'get_logcat' among the siblings, making it somewhat vague.

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 does not mention scenarios like debugging app freezes or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'get_crash_logs' or 'get_flutter_logs', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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