adb_device_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the output (device statuses) but does not disclose potential behaviors such as requiring the ADB server to be started, side effects, or error handling. This is adequate for a simple read-only listing tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and fully serves its 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient completeness. It specifies what the tool lists and which statuses are included, covering the essential return information for a device list tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and there is no need for additional parameter explanation.

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 a specific verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'connected ADB devices' with status values (device, offline, unauthorized). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_exec (which executes commands) and adb_shell_* (shell operations).

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 usage (when you need to check connected ADB devices) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It provides clear context for the tool's purpose but lacks explicit guidance on appropriate use cases.

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