List reverse port forwards

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns a JSON array of `{serial, remote, local}` objects, returns an empty array when none exist, and explains that remote is the device-side listen spec and local is the host-side target.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded, and every clause earns its place by adding command mapping, return format, or field semantics. There is no filler 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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing return-shape information and empty-result behavior. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema covers the device parameter, leaving no significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole optional `device` parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_devices and being optional when exactly one device is connected. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the reverse socket connections of one device') and maps it to the exact underlying command (`adb reverse --list`). It clearly distinguishes reverse connections from the sibling list_forwards tool by name and concept.

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?

Usage is implied by the direct action and the `--list` comparison, so an agent can infer it is for inspecting existing reverse mappings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or sibling alternative guidance (e.g., versus list_forwards or remove_reverse).

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