Push file to device

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete consequence — overwriting a same-named file on device — which reinforces the destructive hint rather than contradicting it. It does not cover failure modes (missing path, insufficient permission, disk space), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and overwrite semantics, followed by sibling routing. Zero 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 3-param, non-nested tool with full schema coverage, full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the routing and overwrite behavior an agent needs. Missing only edge-case behavior (nonexistent host path, permission failure), which slightly limits it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the file_roots restriction on host_path, which is already stated in the schema property description, and no extra syntax or format detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (copy a file from server to device), scopes the source to file_roots, and explicitly names the two most confusable siblings, adb_install and adb_pull. An agent can distinguish this from every other adb_* tool without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use adb_install for APKs, adb_pull for the reverse direction. That is precisely the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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