adb_shell_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not mention side effects, buffer handling, session requirements, or whether commands are interactive. This is a significant gap for a tool that writes to a shell session.

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 clear and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters. It lacks the nuance needed to be appropriately sized, yet it is not verbose or redundant.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description. It does not explain when to use it, expected return behavior, or how it relates to other ADB shell tools. This is insufficient for a task with multiple parameters and a session-based workflow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it simply repeats the general purpose. The schema already documents all three parameters, so this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 states the action ('Send a command') and the resource ('a ADB shell session'), giving a clear verb+resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool adb_shell_exec, which likely also sends commands, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_shell_exec, adb_shell_read, or adb_shell_send_ctrl. There are no exclusions or context hints, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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