as_adb_push

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

The description simply states 'Copy a file' without disclosing behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, permissions required, or error cases. Annotations provide minimal help (destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden but adds little.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise—three lines including the docstring—with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and includes return type information efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficiently complete for a simple file transfer tool, mentioning parameters and return type. However, it could be more complete by noting that `adb push` overwrites existing files on the device, but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (context signal), the description includes a docstring that clarifies parameter purposes: 'local (workspace path), remote (device path), serial'. This adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying the path types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Copy a file from this PC to the device') and resource ('file'), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling `as_adb_pull` which does the reverse operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for transferring files to a device but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives beyond the name.

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