adb_screen_size

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose the output format (e.g., dimensions in pixels), how the optional deviceId behaves when omitted, or any potential side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that interacts with a device.

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 clear sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value and behavior for omitted deviceId. It does neither, leaving the agent uncertain about result format and default device selection. The simplicity of the tool slightly mitigates this, but the lack of return information is a notable gap.

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 fully describes the single parameter deviceId with a clear description, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the 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 'Get the screen dimensions of the device' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (screen dimensions), making the tool's purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like adb_device_info, which could also provide screen-related information, so it lacks overt sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as adb_device_info.

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