adb_call_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must itself convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists possible outcomes, which implies non-destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, nor does it describe behavior when no device is specified or when the device is unavailable. Basic transparency is present but not thorough.

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 one short sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and resource. It contains no redundant words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the possible return values. It lists the three states, which effectively communicates what to expect. Minor omissions like default device behavior or error handling are not critical for such a simple tool, so it is largely 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 provides full coverage for the only parameter (deviceId) with a clear description ('Target device ID (optional)'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('call state'), and enumerates the possible states (idle, ringing, offhook). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_make_call or adb_end_call, which perform different actions.

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 implies usage for querying the current call state, which is obvious from the verb and noun. However, it does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs. alternative tools, nor any exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use this to check before placing a call'). The context is clear but not elaborated.

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