adb_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions device auto-selection but omits important behaviors such as overwrite semantics, permission requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the local file does not exist), and whether directories are created automatically. For a write operation like push, this is a significant gap.

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 with the action. The parameter list is clean and easy to scan, with no redundant information. It does not waste words and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 basic file push, the description covers the essential parameters and core behavior, but it lacks details about return values or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced, so the agent cannot predict the response format. It also omits prerequisites like ADB server status. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: local_path, remote_path with an example, and device with auto-selection logic. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though the explanations are brief.

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 clear action: 'Push a file from the local machine to the Android device.' This specifies the verb, resource, and direction, distinguishing it from siblings like adb_pull (pull) and adb_install (install). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides basic usage and explains the device parameter's auto-selection behavior, which is useful. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use this for transferring files to the device'), nor does it give any exclusion criteria. The intended use is implied but not explicit.

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