android_gradle_daemons

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that the tool lists daemons, identifies lock holders, and can optionally stop idle daemons. It also discloses safety constraints: busy daemons and the IDE are never stopped, and it explains the 'foreign' daemon concept. This is sufficient transparency for a diagnostic and conditional destructive tool, though it does not detail the output format or side effects beyond stopping.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then provides targeted context (the R.jar issue) and an Args section that explains parameters. Every sentence contributes to understanding when and how to use the tool. It could be slightly tighter, but the explanatory scenario adds practical value and is not redundant.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool does, the common problem it addresses, parameter semantics, and safety guarantees. It does not specify the return format or behavior when project_dir is absent, which would be useful but not strictly necessary for a list/stop tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Since the schema provides only parameter names and types with 0% description coverage, the description must add full meaning. It does: 'project_dir' is explained as 'Gradle root whose build outputs to check for locks,' and 'stop' lists all valid values with their meanings ('lockers', 'foreign', 'all-idle') and the default (None). This compensates well, though it leaves minor ambiguity about what happens when project_dir is omitted.

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 starts with a clear verb/resource: 'List Gradle and Kotlin daemons, show which ones lock a project's build outputs, optionally stop some.' It also explains a specific use case (the R.jar lock) and differentiates from sibling Android tools, none of which handle daemon management. This is a specific, well-scoped purpose.

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 explicitly ties the tool to a diagnosis scenario: 'Explains the classic "R.jar is being used by another process"' and details when each stop option is appropriate (e.g., 'foreign' for daemons that Studio can never reuse). It also states a safety boundary ('Busy daemons and the IDE are never stopped'), which guides appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when this tool should *not* be used, though none are apparent among siblings.

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