android_capabilities

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful guarantee: 'No backend is silently escalated,' which clarifies an important behavioral boundary beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and adds only the essential behavioral guarantee.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what the tool reports and why to call it. It covers purpose, usage context, and a key non-escalation guarantee.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics to describe, and the description does not need to clarify inputs.

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 verb 'Report' and the specific resource: runtime feature/backend availability. It also gives the intended purpose, helping an agent choose the least-privileged working path, which distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool: before choosing a backend or working path, to select the least-privileged option. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the purpose is clear enough for appropriate usage.

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