adb_unlock

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 provides useful detail on pattern encoding (3x3 grid numbering and examples), which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention failure behavior (e.g., wrong credential attempts), required permissions, or return values, which would add important context for an unlock operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides a necessary clarification for pattern input. Both sentences are information-dense and free of fluff, making it an appropriately sized and well-structured description.

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 low complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the additional pattern guidance, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the device is already unlocked or if the credential is wrong), but these are not critical for basic invocation and can be inferred from the tool's purpose.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the pattern grid format with concrete examples ('0123' or '0147' for L-shape), which clarifies the schema's terse 'pattern as string of digits' and helps the agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 ('Unlock') and resource ('the device'), and enumerates the supported lock types (password, PIN, pattern, swipe). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_lock and adb_is_locked.

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 when the device is locked but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as adb_shell or adb_lock. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the context to be inferred from the purpose.

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