Restart the adb server

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety flags (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description goes well beyond them by disclosing the actual command sequence, the fact that the adb server is shared with Android Studio and other host tools, and that it returns the device list.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first gives mechanism and outcome, the second gives the blast radius and the call condition. The critical constraint is front-loaded in the second sentence rather than buried.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema action tool, the description covers mechanism, side effects on other processes, the precondition for calling, and the returned device list. An agent has everything it needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema is 4. The description does not waste words inventing parameter semantics.

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 specific mechanism (running `adb kill-server` then `adb start-server`) and the goal (recovering from adb server version conflicts), plus the side effect of reporting the device list. No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable from the list_* / port-forwarding tools.

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?

It states exactly when to call it ('only when adb reports a server/version problem or a device is stuck') and implicitly when not to, by naming the cost of misuse. This is explicit trigger-condition guidance rather than vague context.

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