AutoBot MCP

by yz0903

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as call_phone for calls, click for tapping, and get_screenshot for capturing images. However, some overlap exists, like click, long_click, and press all involving screen interactions, which could cause confusion despite their nuanced differences in duration or action.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern throughout, such as call_phone, clear_app_data, and get_device_info. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count2/5
With 53 tools, the count is excessive for an automation server, leading to potential overwhelm and redundancy. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated or omitted without losing functionality, indicating poor scoping.
Completeness5/5
The toolset comprehensively covers mobile device automation, including UI interactions, file management, app control, system info, and communication features. There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full workflows from setup to cleanup without dead ends.
Average 3.3/5 across 53 of 53 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'returns' a string device ID, but doesn't describe what the operation does (is it reading from system properties, hardware info, or configuration?), whether it requires permissions, if it's cached or real-time, or potential failure modes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two lines stating the action and return type. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading more useful information - the current format feels more like a function signature than a helpful description for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str: Device ID'), the description is minimally complete. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what a 'device ID' represents in this system and how it differs from related device information tools. The existence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more complete context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate - the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than inputs it doesn't have.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get the device ID' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of device ID (hardware identifier, Android ID, serial number, etc.) or what system this retrieves from. While it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on device ID specifically, it lacks the specificity needed for a higher score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or relationship to sibling tools like get_device_info or get_device_name that might provide overlapping or complementary information. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'SIM card 1 only' and implies a mutation (making a call), but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., call duration, network usage), error conditions, or response format beyond a generic success/error message. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose, parameter details, and return value. It's front-loaded with the core function. Minor improvements could include bolding or bullet points for structure, but it's efficient with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (returns str), the description covers basics but is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., call handling, errors), parameter formatting, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values meaningfully. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should do more to guide usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'number' with type and purpose, adding value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format (e.g., E.164, country code), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Make') and resource ('a phone call'), specifying it uses 'SIM card 1 only'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_sms' or 'end_call' by focusing on initiating calls. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternatives like 'call_phone_sim2' if they existed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device state, permissions), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'send_sms' for communication methods. The SIM card limitation is noted but not framed as a usage constraint relative to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns device information as a formatted string, which is helpful, but fails to detail other critical behaviors such as whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that state the purpose and return value without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in the description), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, as a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks completeness in distinguishing itself and providing behavioral context, making it only adequate for basic understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get detailed information about the device', which clearly indicates its purpose as a retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_device_id, get_device_name, or get_screen_info, making it vague about what specific information it provides compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other device-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves a download URL or error message, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the URL format entails (e.g., temporary, authenticated). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more front-loaded by integrating the return info into the main description for faster scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. Without annotations, it should cover more behavioral aspects like error handling or security notes, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It specifies that 'path' is a 'File path to download', clarifying its purpose, but doesn't explain format (e.g., absolute vs. relative), constraints, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('download URL for a file'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_screenshot' or 'get_screen_xml', which also retrieve data but for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or how it differs from other file-related tools like 'list_files' or 'delete_file', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type ('str: Top activity information as JSON'), which adds some behavioral context about output format. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, latency, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by clarifying 'top activity' in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and output format but lacks context on behavior, usage, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple query tool, this is passable but leaves gaps in understanding its role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool, with no gaps to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get information about the current top activity', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'top activity' means (e.g., foreground app, system status, user activity) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_screen_info' or 'get_packages', which might overlap in functionality. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools related to device state (e.g., 'get_screen_info', 'get_packages'), the description doesn't clarify if this is for app-focused queries, system monitoring, or other contexts. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it inputs text and returns a success/error message, but lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing text), or device-specific constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections, making it efficient. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are redundant with the schema and output schema, slightly reducing conciseness, but overall it's well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema (which covers return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains the basic action and parameter, but as a mutation tool, it should include more behavioral context like safety or prerequisites, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'text (str): Text to input', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't provide examples, constraints, or format details, so it only partially addresses the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Input text on the device') and specifies the resource ('text'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'input_char' or 'clear_text', which also involve text manipulation, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'input_char' for single characters or 'set_clipboard_text' for clipboard operations. It merely states what it does without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send an SMS message') and return type, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required (e.g., SMS sending capability), potential side effects (e.g., network usage, user notifications), error conditions (e.g., invalid numbers, network failures), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place by conveying necessary information without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the opening sentence, but overall it's efficient and readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally complete. It defines the action and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return documentation, but the description should do more to compensate for the absence of annotations, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description compensates by listing both parameters with basic types ('phone_number (str): Recipient phone number', 'message (str): Message content'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks format details (e.g., phone number formatting like E.164, message length limits), leaving some semantic gaps. This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('SMS message'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from most siblings (e.g., 'call_phone', 'get_sms') by focusing on sending rather than calling or retrieving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential messaging alternatives like 'input_text' or 'set_clipboard_text', which slightly limits sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., device permissions, network connectivity), exclusions (e.g., character limits, supported regions), or comparisons to similar tools like 'input_text' for on-device text entry. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and return format. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like: what happens to existing clipboard content, whether this requires specific permissions, platform limitations, or potential side effects. The return value description is minimal ('Success or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with a clear structure: purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' description could be more informative. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (though not shown here) and only one parameter, the description is minimally complete. However, for a clipboard manipulation tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about system interactions, permissions, and limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail, but behavioral context is still lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides the parameter name and its purpose ('Text to set in clipboard'), which adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides no descriptions, the tool description adequately explains what the parameter represents, though it could provide more context about text length limits or formatting requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Set clipboard text'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_clipboard_text' beyond the obvious directionality (set vs get), and the purpose is somewhat basic without additional context about what system clipboard is being targeted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While 'get_clipboard_text' is clearly a complementary tool, the description doesn't mention it or provide any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate use cases for setting clipboard text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Stop screen recording') and return type ('Success or error message'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., saves a file), or error conditions. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences: one stating the action and another describing the return. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and there's no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more structured by integrating the return info into the first sentence for better flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and return, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more context like prerequisites or effects to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling this case without unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Stop screen recording'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_all_scripts' or 'stop_app', nor does it clarify what exactly gets stopped (e.g., a previously started recording). This makes it clear but somewhat vague in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a recording to be active), exclusions, or related tools like 'start_screen_recording'. Without such context, usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it returns 'Clipboard content or error message', which adds some behavioral context about possible outcomes. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what constitutes an error, leaving gaps for a tool that accesses system resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two lines: one stating the action and another describing the return. It's front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a system interaction tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on error conditions or usage limits to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline high score for not adding unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and resource 'clipboard text', which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_clipboard_text' beyond the obvious directionality, and the title is null, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While the sibling list includes 'set_clipboard_text', the description doesn't explicitly contrast them or mention any prerequisites or contexts for retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns an image but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires device permissions, if it works on locked screens, what image format is returned, or potential side effects (e.g., screen flash).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence about returns is somewhat redundant but not excessive. It could be slightly more efficient by combining both ideas into one sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that captures device screenshots with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., image type, encoding), error conditions, or prerequisites like screen state requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a high baseline score for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('takes a screenshot') and the resource ('of the device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_screen_info' or 'get_screen_xml' that also retrieve screen-related data, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_screen_info' (for metadata) and 'get_screen_xml' (for UI structure), there's no indication of when a screenshot is preferred over other screen-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool returns IP addresses as JSON, which is helpful, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires network permissions, if it returns both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, whether it's a read-only operation, or if there are any rate limits or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the return format. There's no wasted text, though some might argue it's too brief given the lack of behavioral context. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a simple read operation with 0 parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is minimally complete. However, for a device information tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about what 'all IP addresses' means (network interfaces, loopback, etc.) and any behavioral constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to describe any. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all IP addresses of the device' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IP addresses'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_device_id or get_device_info by focusing specifically on IP addresses. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools that might exist elsewhere.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like get_device_info which might also provide IP information. There's no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type (str) and possible error message, which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't cover other aspects like permissions needed, side effects, or error handling specifics, which are important for a device interaction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by return details. It uses only two sentences, which is efficient, though the return statement could be integrated more smoothly for better structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with many sibling tools, it lacks context on differentiation and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('display name of the device'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device_id' or 'get_device_info', which are similar retrieval operations on the same device entity, so it lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_device_id' and 'get_device_info', there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool or when it's preferred, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the return type ('str: A list... as a string'), which adds some value, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this requires device permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), potential rate limits, or how the list is formatted (e.g., sorted, delimited). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and return details in the second. Every sentence adds value without waste, but it could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly or adding brief usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but has gaps. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description's mention of 'str: A list...' is redundant. However, it lacks context on device dependencies or behavioral traits, making it minimally viable but not fully complete for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundancy and focuses on other aspects, though it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all installed packages on the device'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_action_intents' or 'get_device_info', which could provide similar package-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_package_action_intents' for intents or 'list_files' for file listings. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing device access, or exclusions, such as not filtering packages, which limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a formatted string, which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and the return type in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for returns).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the return format, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. With an output schema, it doesn't need to elaborate on return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs without unnecessary detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('screen information'), including what information is retrieved (dimensions, rotation). It distinguishes from siblings like get_screen_rotation (which likely only returns rotation) and get_screenshot (which captures an image). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from get_device_info, which might overlap in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for usage, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like get_screen_rotation or get_device_info, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it states what the tool returns, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation, potential performance implications, or how it interacts with the current UI state. The description is minimal beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, detailing the return content, and specifying the return type. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a read operation with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for the basic operation. However, for a UI inspection tool with many sibling tools providing related functionality, more context about when to use this specific tool would be valuable. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, which is efficient and correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves information about clickable elements in the current UI' with specific details about what information is returned. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('clickable elements'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_screen_xml or get_screen_info that might provide related UI information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_screen_xml or get_screen_info that also provide UI-related information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the action ('press a key') and a return value, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires device interaction permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., app navigation), or error conditions beyond a generic message. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the example key codes could be more comprehensive to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a single parameter mutation), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies a string return, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter meaning but lacks depth on behavioral nuances, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, which would be needed for robust agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'key_code' is an integer representing specific keys (e.g., 3 for HOME, 4 for BACK), providing essential context that the schema lacks. However, it doesn't list all possible key codes or reference a documentation source, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('press') and resource ('a key on the device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'press' (which might be similar) or other input-related tools, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'input_text', 'click', or 'press'. It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., navigation vs. text input) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions a default duration and return format, but doesn't disclose important behaviors like: whether recording starts immediately, what format/quality is used, where recordings are saved, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens when the limit is reached. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific than just 'Success or error message'. Every sentence serves a purpose with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a potentially complex system operation with no annotations and an output schema (though not shown), the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It covers the parameter meaning and return format, but misses critical context about the recording behavior, storage location, permissions, and interaction with the sibling 'stop_screen_recording' tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'limit' represents 'Maximum recording duration in seconds' and providing the default value of 180. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't mention constraints like minimum/maximum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Start' and resource 'screen recording', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'stop_screen_recording' in the description text itself, though the naming makes the distinction obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing screen recording permissions), what happens if recording is already in progress, or when to use this versus other media-related tools like 'play_music' or 'get_screenshot'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Turn on the screen') and mentions a return value ('Success or error message'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or operational constraints (e.g., device state requirements). This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with device hardware.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, consisting of just two short sentences that state the action and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the second sentence could be more integrated or omitted if the output schema covers return values, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a tool that likely performs a device operation with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., safety, prerequisites) to be fully complete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Turn on the screen') and resource ('screen'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'turn_screen_off' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention this contrast. The description is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation beyond the obvious inverse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'turn_screen_off' or other screen-related tools like 'get_screen_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that it 'Returns: str: Success or error message', which adds some behavioral context about the output. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., does it trigger UI events?), error conditions (e.g., what happens if no input field is active?), or performance considerations. For a tool with no annotations, this is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the return value. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or fluff. It's structured effectively for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and return type, but as a UI interaction tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further on that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Clear text') and target ('in the current input field'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'input_text' or 'set_clipboard_text' by focusing on clearing rather than adding or setting text. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'delete_file' or 'clear_app_data' in terms of scope, though the context makes it reasonably clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used instead of 'input_text' with an empty string, or clarify its role relative to other UI interaction tools like 'click' or 'gesture'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an input field to be focused, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action and return type. It lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to call data, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., call logs).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two brief sentences that are front-loaded (action first, return second) and have zero wasted words. Every element earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and return. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context (e.g., safety, prerequisites) for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score above 3 for correctly handling this case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('End') and target ('the current phone call'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_app' or 'stop_screen_recording' that also terminate activities, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an active call), exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions that 'path takes priority over script' and describes default values for delay/interval/loop_times, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., does it run in background?), error handling, or what 'Success or error message' entails. For a tool that executes scripts on a device, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a brief purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (script execution on a device with looping/delay options), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks context on safety, device requirements, or execution environment. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to detail return values, but broader behavioral context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters clearly: it defines optional vs. priority, default values, and the meaning of special values (e.g., '0 for infinite' loops). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on script/path format expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('an AutoX.js script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_adb_shell_command' or 'stop_all_scripts' that might also involve script execution or control.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., device state), comparison to similar tools like 'execute_adb_shell_command', or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it 'gets' actions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, or what 'non-data actions' entails (e.g., whether it includes destructive intents). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections, all in three concise sentences with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates key information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in description), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and with one parameter, it covers basics. However, for a tool querying 'actions' in a system with potential complexity, more context on what 'non-data actions' means or usage prerequisites would enhance completeness, especially with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'package_name' by explaining it's 'the name of the package to get actions for', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('non-data actions from Activity Resolver Table for a package'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_packages' or 'execute_script', which could have overlapping domains, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other 'get_' tools or how it relates to actions in the context of the sibling list. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool returns screen layout as XML, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it blocks execution while waiting, or what happens if the screen isn't available. The 'is_wait' parameter hint suggests blocking behavior, but this isn't explicitly explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. The formatting with labeled sections enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (returns str) and only one parameter with partial documentation in the description, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a screen interaction tool with no annotations, it should ideally explain more about the XML format, what 'screen layout' encompasses, and how this differs from other screen-related tools in the sibling set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'is_wait (bool): Whether to wait for layout (default: true)'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'waiting' entails or the implications of setting it to false.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get screen layout in XML format', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_screen_info' or 'get_uilayout' that might provide similar screen-related information in different formats or detail levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_screen_info', 'get_screenshot', and 'get_uilayout' available, the description doesn't explain what makes this XML format retrieval distinct or when it's preferable to other screen information tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool inserts a contact and returns a success or error message, but fails to mention critical details like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured, using a brief purpose statement followed by bullet points for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a simple mutation with 2 parameters), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, with no annotations and an output schema that only indicates a string return, it lacks details on behavioral traits and error handling, making it minimally viable but incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists both parameters ('name' and 'number') with their types and meanings, adding clear semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of detail, though it could further clarify constraints like format or length.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert a new contact') and the resource ('contact'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_contact' or 'get_contacts' beyond the basic verb, leaving room for improvement in distinguishing its exact role among alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_contact' or 'get_contacts'. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action ('Start an application') and return type, but doesn't disclose critical traits like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., app foregrounding), error conditions, or platform-specific constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. Every element serves a clear function with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return type, and an output schema exists for return values. However, it lacks behavioral details needed for safe use, leaving gaps in understanding side effects or errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'package_name (str): Package name of the application to start'. This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type and title, though schema description coverage is 0%. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Start') and resource ('an application'), specifying it's done 'by package name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_app' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed), exclusions, or compare with siblings like 'execute_script' for app launching. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Stop') and return type, but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether scripts are terminated abruptly), error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another specifying the return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description covers basics. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., safety, reversibility) to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target ('all running AutoX.js scripts'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_app' or 'stop_screen_recording', which target different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether scripts must be running), exclusions, or context for selection among sibling tools like 'stop_app' or 'execute_script'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action and return type. It lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., device behavior changes), or error conditions, which are critical for a tool that modifies device state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one for the action and one for the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description covers basics but is incomplete for a state-changing tool. It lacks context on what safe mode is, why to turn it off, or behavioral impacts, which annotations or richer description could address.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, aligning with the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Turn off') and resource ('safe mode'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'turn_safe_mode_on' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what safe mode is or its context, which slightly limits specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 or prerequisites. It doesn't reference the sibling 'is_safe_mode' for checking status or 'turn_safe_mode_on' for the opposite action, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but doesn't mention what happens after clicking (e.g., UI changes, app navigation), error conditions, permissions needed, or system impacts. The return value description is minimal ('Success or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three clear sections (action, args, returns). The first sentence states the purpose directly. However, the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed about coordinate systems.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (screen interaction), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context, error details, and usage guidance relative to siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that x and y coordinates can be 'absolute or relative 0-1', clarifying the parameter semantics that aren't evident from the schema alone. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('click') and target ('at the specified coordinates on the screen'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'long_click' or 'gesture', which are similar interaction tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'long_click', 'gesture', or 'press'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions that the tool returns a success or error message, which is helpful, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether the gesture is executed immediately, if it requires specific device states, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that performs device interactions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet-like formatting. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently explains parameters without unnecessary details. However, the example points format could be slightly more concise, and it lacks a brief usage context sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (device gesture execution), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions the return type, but misses behavioral details like execution timing, device requirements, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'duration' is in milliseconds and 'points' is a list of coordinate objects with example syntax, clarifying the structure and units that the schema alone does not provide. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Execute a single-finger gesture', specifying the action (execute) and resource (gesture). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'swipe' or 'click' by focusing on custom gesture execution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'swipe', 'click', or 'gestures'. The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions executing gestures and describes parameters, it doesn't explain what happens on the device, whether gestures are visible to the user, what permissions are required, or potential side effects. The return value description is minimal ('Success or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value, though the return value description could be slightly more informative. The formatting with clear sections makes it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema, the description does reasonably well. It fully documents the single parameter and provides basic return information. However, as a device interaction tool that likely has side effects, more behavioral context would be helpful given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides comprehensive parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It fully documents the single parameter 'gestures_data' including its list structure and the three sub-properties (delay, duration, points) with their types and meanings. This completely compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Execute multi-finger gestures' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It specifies 'multi-finger' which distinguishes it from simpler gesture tools like 'click' or 'swipe' in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar 'gesture' sibling tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this is appropriate versus simpler gesture tools, or what makes 'multi-finger' gestures different from other gesture capabilities in the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('Contact information as JSON'), which is helpful, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires permissions, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's no wasted text, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., using markdown). Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions) that would be important for a tool interacting with device contacts. With no annotations, it should do more to explain operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the 'number' parameter's purpose: 'Phone number to search for, or "*" to get all contacts (default)'. This clarifies the semantics and default behavior, compensating well for the schema's lack of documentation. With only one parameter, this is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all contacts or a specific contact by phone number'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('contacts'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'insert_contact' or 'delete_contact' beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the parameter explanation: use '*' for all contacts or a specific phone number for a single contact. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'insert_contact' or 'delete_contact', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('File list as JSON') but lacks details on permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the parameter and return format, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like safety or error cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds essential meaning by explaining 'path' as a directory path with an example ('/sdcard'). This compensates well for the lack of schema details, though it could specify path format constraints more explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files in a directory'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'get_file_url' or 'delete_file', but the core action is well-defined.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as 'get_file_url' for accessing file content or 'delete_file' for removal. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action and coordinate parameters but doesn't describe what 'long click' means behaviorally (e.g., duration, visual feedback, system response), whether it requires specific permissions, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a UI interaction tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value documentation. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more naturally rather than as separate labeled blocks, and some redundancy exists between the main statement and parameter explanations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (UI interaction with coordinate parameters), no annotations, and an output schema that only indicates a string return, the description provides adequate basics but lacks important context about the 'long click' behavior, error conditions, or practical usage examples that would help an agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the bare schema. The input schema has 0% description coverage (just titles 'X' and 'Y'), but the description explicitly explains that coordinates can be 'absolute or relative 0-1', which is crucial context not present in the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Long click') and target ('at the specified coordinates on the screen'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'click' or 'gesture', though the 'long' modifier implies a duration difference from regular clicks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'click' or 'gesture'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar operations in the sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a state-changing operation (turn on) that restricts AutoBot's access to screen layout and notifications. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, reversibility (though 'turn_safe_mode_off' exists), side effects, or error conditions beyond the generic return message mention.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately brief (three lines) and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds important behavioral context, and the third clarifies return type. No redundant information is present, though the structure could be slightly more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is moderately complete. It explains the action and key restrictions but lacks details about error conditions, side effects, or integration with other tools. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, though it could theoretically mention that no configuration options are available for this operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Turn on safe mode') and specifies the resource affected (AutoBot's capabilities). It distinguishes from sibling 'turn_safe_mode_off' by indicating the opposite state change. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'is_safe_mode' which checks status rather than changing it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions what safe mode does but doesn't specify scenarios for activation, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other control tools. The sibling list includes related tools but no comparative context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves SMS messages and returns them as JSON, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, data scope (e.g., time range, limit), or error handling. This is a significant gap for a data retrieval tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like data limits or error cases, leaving gaps for a tool that interacts with sensitive data (SMS).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'number', explaining it can be a phone number or '*' for all SMS, with a default value. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't specify format (e.g., with country code).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('SMS messages'), and distinguishes between getting all messages or from a specific number. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_sms' or 'get_contacts', which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning the default behavior ('*' to get all SMS) and the option to filter by number, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_contacts' or 'send_sms'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions a potential failure on older Android versions, which is useful context, but doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how it handles network errors, or if it plays audio in the background. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by a warning, and then parameter/return documentation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy. The formatting with sections for 'Args' and 'Returns' enhances readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (audio playback with potential platform issues), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies a string return type, the description is somewhat complete but could be improved. It covers the basic operation and a key warning, but lacks details about audio formats supported, playback controls, or error handling specifics that would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('url') with its type and purpose, adding meaningful context beyond what the input schema provides (which has 0% description coverage). Since there's only one parameter and it's fully explained in the description, this compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Play') and resource ('music from a URL'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_music' beyond the basic action, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it includes a warning about Android 10 compatibility, this is a technical constraint rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the action and return type, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, whether this interacts with UI elements, what permissions might be needed, or potential side effects. The description is minimal beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter explanations in a consistent format. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and mentions the return type, but lacks context about when to use it, behavioral constraints, and how it relates to sibling tools. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but more operational context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics that go well beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage (just titles and types), but the description explains each parameter's meaning, coordinate systems (absolute or relative 0-1), and the duration default value - adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Swipe from one point to another on the screen' - this is a specific verb+action combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'gesture' or 'gestures' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this swipe action is appropriate versus other interaction methods like 'click', 'long_click', or 'gesture' tools in the sibling list, nor any prerequisites or constraints for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions executing a command and returning output or error, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool that likely requires device access and could have destructive impacts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Arg and Return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists (returns str), the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context like safety or device interaction details, which are crucial for this type of tool, making it minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'command' as 'The ADB shell command to execute', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type. This is effective for one parameter, though more detail on command format could improve it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Executes an ADB command') and resource ('ADB shell command'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'execute_script' or 'gesture' by focusing on ADB shell execution. It provides a complete picture of what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'execute_script' for scripts or other ADB-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON string) and the mapping of numeric values to orientations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, permissions needed, or whether this requires screen to be on/active, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence for the purpose, one for the return format with explicit mapping. Every sentence adds value, and the return details are front-loaded after the core purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 params, simple output), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose and documents the return value mapping. With an output schema present (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values, but it usefully adds the orientation mapping. Minor gaps remain in error handling or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the screen rotation' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like get_screen_info or get_screenshot by focusing specifically on rotation state. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like get_screen_info (which might include rotation) or other device-state tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a version number as a string, which is basic behavioral information. However, it lacks details on potential errors, performance, or side effects, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one specifying the return type. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is complete enough for its simplicity. It explains what the tool does and the return type, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately focuses on the return value. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by explaining the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'AutoBot version number', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device_info' or 'get_device_name', which also retrieve information, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve information (e.g., get_device_info, get_screen_info), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using get_version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (connection testing) and return type (string response), but lacks details about error conditions, timeouts, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, this is minimally adequate but doesn't provide rich behavioral context like what constitutes a successful test.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise and well-structured. Two brief sentences: first states the purpose, second describes the return value. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information not available elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, diagnostic purpose) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. For a basic connectivity test, additional details about error handling or server requirements would be helpful but aren't critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. The schema already fully documents the empty parameter set, so no additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test connection to AutoBot server' - a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('connection to AutoBot server'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_device_info' or 'get_version' by focusing on connectivity testing rather than device data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential connectivity tools (none exist in siblings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), typical use cases (e.g., initial setup verification), or what to do if the test fails. With many sibling tools available, there's no context about when this diagnostic tool should be prioritized over functional tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('str: Safe mode status (1=enabled, 0=disabled)'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or whether this requires specific permissions. For a simple status check tool, the return format disclosure is helpful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second sentence provides the return format. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. The output schema would provide the return structure details, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further. For a simple status check tool, this covers the essentials.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is correct. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Check if safe mode is enabled', which is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('safe mode'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'turn_safe_mode_on' and 'turn_safe_mode_off' by being a read operation rather than a write operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a read-only status check versus a toggle operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to check safe mode status (e.g., before performing certain operations) or differentiate it from other status-checking tools. The presence of sibling tools like 'turn_safe_mode_on/off' suggests this should be used for read-only status checks, but this isn't explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it changes the AutoBot display name. It lacks details on permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, side effects, or error conditions beyond the generic return message mention. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear main statement, a clarifying note, and separate sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple mutation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning. However, without annotations and lacking details on behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, it's only minimally adequate, leaving gaps in operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'name' by specifying it's a 'Display name for the device', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Set a display name') and the resource ('for the device'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_device_name' by specifying it's a write operation. The note further clarifies the scope by differentiating between system device name and AutoBot display name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it distinguishes from 'get_device_name' by being a setter, it doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions, or contextual scenarios for usage, leaving the agent without operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Stop') but doesn't describe what 'stop' entails (e.g., force-quit, background suspension, user confirmation), potential side effects (e.g., data loss if unsaved), permissions required, or error conditions (e.g., if app isn't running). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a simple input schema (1 parameter) and an output schema (returns a string message), the description covers the basics adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, and usage context, which are important for safe and effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'package_name' by specifying it's for 'the application to stop', which clarifies its role beyond the schema's generic 'Package Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining what the parameter represents, though it doesn't provide format examples (e.g., 'com.example.app').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stop') and target resource ('an application by package name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_app' (which starts applications) and 'clear_app_data' (which clears data rather than stopping). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the app must be running), exclusions (e.g., system apps might not be stoppable), or related tools like 'start_app' for starting apps or 'stop_all_scripts' for broader stopping operations. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return value ('Success or error message'), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it stops all audio or just music, or any side effects (e.g., pausing vs. stopping). The description is minimal and leaves key behaviors unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two sentences: one stating the action and another describing the return value. Every sentence adds value without waste, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic action and return type, but without annotations, it misses behavioral details like error conditions or operational constraints. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description's brevity is acceptable but not fully informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stop playing music') with a verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'play_music' by indicating the opposite operation, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'stop_all_scripts' or 'stop_app', nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring music to be currently playing. It lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the device remains active for control/casting, which is useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'off' action. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., screen lock implications), or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action with a clarifying parenthetical, and the second briefly notes the return type. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple action), an output schema exists (specifying return type), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, device state, and return value. However, for a mutation tool, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Turn off the screen') and specifies the resource (the screen), with a clarifying note about device activity. It distinguishes from sibling 'turn_screen_on' by indicating the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other power-related tools like 'stop_app' or 'exit_service', which slightly reduces specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., screen must be on), exclusions (e.g., not for powering off the device), or compare to siblings like 'turn_screen_on' or 'get_screen_info'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 destructive nature ('delete all app data and cannot be undone'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., app reset), or error handling beyond the return message.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and warning, followed by structured Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second warns of consequences, and the bullet points document parameters and returns efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the critical warning and parameter semantics. However, it lacks context on system dependencies (e.g., Android/ADB requirements) or usage scenarios, leaving gaps in completeness for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'package_name' refers to the 'Package name of the app', which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Package Name' title. No format examples or constraints are provided, but it adequately explains the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('clear') and resource ('application data for a package'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'stop_app', but the focus on app data is reasonably distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning about irreversible deletion, which implies caution, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_app' or 'delete_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the app to be installed or running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 destructive nature ('will delete the file/directory and all its contents'), which is critical for a mutation tool. It also hints at the return value format. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or irreversible effects beyond the warning.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by a critical warning and structured parameter/return details. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second warns of consequences, and the last two document I/O efficiently. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and a simple schema, the description covers the basics: purpose, warning, and parameter/return semantics. However, it lacks context on permissions, error handling, or system-specific constraints. The output schema exists, so return values are documented, but behavioral gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'path' refers to a 'File or directory path to delete', clarifying the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Path' title. Since there's only one parameter, this is sufficient, but it doesn't detail path format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a file or directory', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_files' or 'get_file_url' by specifying deletion rather than reading or retrieving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive tools like 'clear_app_data' or 'delete_contact' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., for system files), or direct alternatives among siblings. The warning about deletion is behavioral, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (press at coordinates for duration) and return type (success/error message), but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it triggers UI actions), error conditions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely interacts with device input.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with quotes and line breaks is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well and notes the return type, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or interaction effects, which is important for a device input tool with siblings like 'long_click'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: it explains that x and y coordinates can be absolute or relative (0-1), and specifies the default value and unit (milliseconds) for duration. This covers all 3 parameters effectively, though it could note that x and y are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Long press') and resource ('at specified coordinates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' (brief tap) and 'long_click' (similar but potentially different implementation). It precisely defines the action as a press with duration, making it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for long press actions on a screen, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'click' (for taps) or 'long_click' (a sibling tool with similar name). It provides context (coordinates and duration) but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about caution for deletions, implying destructive behavior, but does not detail permissions needed, reversibility, or rate limits. The description adds some context (e.g., the default behavior with '*') but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits, making it adequate but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, warning, and parameter/return details in bullet-like format. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the warning could be integrated more seamlessly. Every sentence adds value, with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and no annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, and caution. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks details on error conditions or behavioral nuances, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explicitly defines the 'number' parameter as a phone number or '*' to delete all contacts, with a default value of '*', adding crucial meaning beyond the bare schema. This covers the single parameter comprehensively, making it highly effective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('contact or all contacts'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes between deleting a single contact by phone number and deleting all contacts with the '*' wildcard, which is essential for understanding the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a warning to 'Use with caution, especially when deleting all contacts,' which provides clear guidance on when to be careful. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other deletion tools like 'delete_file'), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some contextual gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'key simulation' which hints at behavioral implementation, but doesn't disclose important details like permissions needed, whether it requires screen focus, potential side effects, or rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, providing usage guidelines, and documenting parameters/returns. No wasted words and front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (returns str), the description appropriately doesn't explain return values. For a single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter meaning adequately, though could benefit from more behavioral context about the key simulation mechanism.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the single parameter 'text' as 'ASCII text to input' and specifying ASCII constraints. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on length limits or character validation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Input ASCII characters using key simulation') and resource ('ASCII text'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'input_text' by mentioning it's for when that tool doesn't work. This provides a precise verb+resource combination with sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when input_text doesn't work in certain situations'), providing clear guidance on alternatives and context. It directly names the sibling tool and specifies the failure scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the destructive consequence ('terminate the AutoBot server') and return type. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires special permissions or what happens to active operations when terminated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with zero waste: first states the action, second provides critical warning, third documents return value. Perfectly front-loaded with the most important information (the destructive consequence) immediately following the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter destructive tool with output schema, the description covers purpose, consequences, and return type adequately. The only minor gap is lack of information about permission requirements or what happens to in-progress operations when the server terminates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the action and consequences.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Exit') and target resource ('AutoBot service'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform device operations rather than service control. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying what gets terminated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance with the warning 'This will terminate the AutoBot server', clearly indicating this is for shutting down the service versus other tools that operate within it. This creates a strong boundary between service management and device operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![autobot-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yz0903/autobot-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yz0903/autobot-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![autobot-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yz0903/autobot-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yz0903/autobot-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yz0903/autobot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server