Device capabilities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of report (full/partial/unavailable), backend involvement, and caveats, which gives useful context. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, possible side effects, or error conditions, leaving some transparency 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 two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides actionable guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is reported and when to use it. The phrase 'full/partial/unavailable' hints at return values, and the second sentence gives contextual guidance. Minor details about how to interpret results are implied but not fully specified.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the single parameter 'device_id' with helpful examples (adb serial, UDID). The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource ('which actions are supported on a device'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on capability checking rather than performing actions, and it adds a clear scope (full/partial/unavailable) with backend caveats.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Check this before relying on a platform-specific action.' This provides clear context for usage but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name what not to use, so it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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