fix(server): device_open finds a booted AVD by name and says when the device list failed - #30289

1. browse_code — docs/internals/testing.md

💭 Evaluating test scenarios I need to assess the existing tests to see if they fit the new scenarios. It’s important to ensure they’re still relevant and cover all necessary aspects. I wonder if there are any gaps that need to be addressed. Should I consider adjusting the tests to align better with the new requirements? It feels like this is key to maintaining the quality of our work. Let’s dive in and take a closer look!

2. browse_code — apps/server/src/device/DeviceService.test.ts

3. browse_code — apps/server/src/mcp/McpDeviceToolkit.test.ts

💭 Considering test logic and schema I’m exploring the logic behind testing methods and considering how to simplify by possibly folding similar tests together since they share a failed host. I wonder if different stubs can justify creating distinct cases, even with no findings. Also, I need to focus on the output schema and ensure that all requirements are clear, particularly with fields needing titles and summaries. I'm thinking the structure should be "All clear summary All clear" as specified.

4. browse_code — At commit 984d245, examine tests in apps/server/src/mcp/McpDeviceToolkit.test.ts and apps/server/src/mcp/toolkits/device/handlers.test.ts for coverage duplicating the two new tests 'says a host’s device list failed instead of that a device is missing' and 'says the asked host’s device list failed even when another host has the id'. Report exact overlapping cases only, if any.

5. browse_code — At given commit examine tests in apps/server/src/device/DeviceService.test.ts added in PR about AVD names. Are any of these cases repeated at a lower layer or an existing test, in violation of testing policy? Identify exact overlapping cases only.

6. browse_code — Find lowest direct test layer of pickDevice logic and whether these new McpDeviceToolkit tests are wrapper tests duplicated in handlers.test.ts or elsewhere. Show actual implementation/test contexts.

7. browse_code — Within new tests in DeviceService.test.ts at lines 1856-1924 analyze whether the explicit-host mac-mini assertion in third test tests different exact-id precedence from the assertion in second test, given actual implementation.

8. browse_code — Are added tests of device open failure cases implementation logic or solely text? Identify existing lowest-layer coverage for host list failed behavior.

9. browse_code — Do any of the new tests in DeviceService.test.ts lines 1856-1924 repeat an existing case or cover only trivial types, static text, smoke or mock-call mirrors? Review precise scenario.