android_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it is metadata-only and that no action parameters or sensitive payloads are stored, providing extra behavioral and privacy context beyond the structured hints. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource list; the second sentence adds an important safety qualifier. No filler or repetition, and 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?

The description covers what diagnostics are exposed and underscores metadata-only/no-storage behavior, but with no output schema it does not describe return shape or result content. The parameter effects are also only implied. For a broad diagnostics tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'event' and 'execution-trace' diagnostics, which loosely map to eventLimit and traceLimit, but it never explains how the limits behave or affect results. The schema provides type/default/range, but the description adds minimal value for the parameters.

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 uses the explicit verb 'Read' and enumerates the resource categories (service, Tailscale, request, accessibility, snapshot, capability, event, execution-trace). It clearly states the tool's purpose and is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like android_events or android_capabilities.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, nor any alternatives among overlapping siblings. The metadata-only safety note implies a read-only diagnostic use case, but the agent is left to infer when to choose this broad tool over specific tools such as android_events or android_capabilities.

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