android_shell_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context by specifying what is being verified (installation and authorization), but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as what a successful or failed check implies for subsequent shell usage.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Report') and delivers the essential qualification immediately.

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 zero-parameter status check with strong read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. It conveys that the result is a yes/no determination about installation and authorization; a slightly richer description could clarify the exact return shape, but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema fully covers this dimension. The description adds the relevant semantic context by explaining what state the tool reports, which is sufficient given the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Report') and names the exact resource (optional Termux RUN_COMMAND shell backend) and the status dimensions being checked (installed and authorized). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like android_shell (which executes commands) and android_shizuku_status (which checks a different backend).

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 makes the tool's purpose obvious: check whether the Termux RUN_COMMAND backend is available and authorized before relying on shell execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X,' but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool when a pre-flight shell-backend check is needed.

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