adb_device_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the auto-selection behavior when the device parameter is omitted and only one device is connected. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what happens with multiple devices or no devices, or any side effects. There is no statement about permissions or the nature of the returned 'detailed information.'

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 concise and front-loaded: a single clear sentence stating the purpose, followed by a brief parameter explanation. No extraneous words or redundant details. It earns its place and is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter behavior. The presence of an output schema likely covers return values. However, it omits edge cases like multiple devices or device-not-found errors, and it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., ADB server running). It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'device' is a 'Device serial number' and describes the fallback behavior when omitted. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the exact format of the serial number or error conditions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a connected Android device.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_devices (which lists devices) and adb_screenshot. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other adb_* tools. It only explains the device parameter, not the conditions under which this tool should be chosen. For instance, it doesn't mention that adb_devices is for listing devices or that this tool is for inspecting a single device. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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