adb_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds behavioral context like 'one-shot' and auto-discovery error behavior (errors out if 0 or >1 devices) from the schema, but it does not disclose whether the command is read-only or mutating (install and push imply mutation), any permission requirements, or output format. The mention of short shell commands hints at execution limits but not explicitly.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('Execute a one-shot ADB command') and then follows with supporting use cases. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description plus detailed parameter guidance covers the main usage scenarios and device-selection behavior. It does not explain return values or error handling for command failures, but for an execution wrapper over adb this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema itself thoroughly documents both parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only recites example commands. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a one-shot ADB command without a persistent session.' It also enumerates example use cases (adb devices, install, push, short shell commands), which sharpens the purpose. This differentiates it from persistent-session siblings like adb_shell_open and from adb_device_list.

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 gives explicit context on when to use: for one-shot commands and short shell commands, and the device parameter guidance further states there is no need to call adb_device_list first and when to omit the device parameter. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools when persistent sessions are needed, but the phrase 'without a persistent session' implies the boundary.

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