android_analyze

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 video sampling (fps, max_frames) but omits side effects, error behavior, required external services (LM Studio), and whether the operation is read-only or modifies anything. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have failure modes.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by a compact argument list. It is efficient and front-loaded, though the argument list could be slightly more terse. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the inputs well but omits what the tool returns (e.g., the VLM's answer text) and any runtime prerequisites (e.g., VLM server running, media files existing). Given the complexity, more guidance on expected output and preconditions would be needed for full completeness.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: each of the six parameters (question, images, video, fps, max_frames, model) is given a meaningful, context-specific explanation, including defaults and purpose. 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.

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

The description states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Ask the local LM Studio VLM about images or a video already on disk.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like android_screenshot or android_ui_dump, which capture/display UI rather than analyze media. The scope 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.

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

The description implies usage context ('already on disk') but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It doesn't mention prerequisites like having the VLM running or how this relates to media capture tools. Usage is inferable but not clearly stated.

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