adb_dial_number

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool's non-dialing behavior and the need for user interaction, which is the most critical behavioral trait distinguishing it from adb_make_call. It does not detail side effects like screen unlock requirements, but for a simple tool this is acceptable.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and parenthetically adds the key caveat. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what it does, what it does not do, and relies on the schema for parameter details. There is no output schema to explain, and the description covers the main behavioral nuance. It could potentially mention the need for an unlocked screen, but this is not essential.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (deviceId and phoneNumber), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description neither contradicts nor expands on the schema, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Open the dialer with a number') and immediately clarifies the key distinction from adb_make_call by stating it does not dial. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to open the dialer without completing a call) and explicitly states a when-not ('does not dial - user must press call'), effectively excluding scenarios where automatic dialing is needed. However, it does not explicitly name adb_make_call as an alternative, so it misses the full 'alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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