list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says it lists devices, but does not reveal whether it returns only connected devices, whether it needs adb/emulator tools initialized, whether it can block/wait for devices, what happens when no devices are present, or whether the list is ordered or filtered. For a zero-parameter discover command this is a moderate gap, so it merits a 2 rather than a 1.

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 concise sentence that conveys the action, the resource, and the platform scope in 9 words. There is no redundancy, and the key scope delimiter (Android/iOS, devices/emulators/simulators) is included without bloat.

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 (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description captures the primary purpose. However, it does not mention the command's value as a prerequisite for other operations (e.g., connect_device), nor hints at the output shape (device IDs, names, states). For a list command, knowing what gets returned matters to an agent, but the absence of an output schema raises the need for at least a short comment on output format.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema with no required properties). The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it correctly implies the tool requires no input.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('connected Android devices/emulators and iOS simulators'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings, most of which act on the current device rather than enumerating available ones. It lacks an explicit head-to-head differentiation clause with a sibling, but the verb+resource scope is clear enough on its own.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of alternatives such as connect_device or device_info. However, from the sibling names, listing devices is a natural precursor to connecting or acting on a device, and the zero-parameter design implies it is a discovery operation. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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