android_shizuku_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds value beyond these by specifying the exact status dimensions reported and, importantly, that Shizuku is never selected implicitly—a behavioral constraint not captured by the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the reported state components, followed by one short high-value clarifier about implicit selection. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 stateless, zero-parameter, read-only status tool with rich annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is reported, that it is safe and idempotent via annotations, and that it will not happen implicitly. No output schema exists, but the agent knows what to expect conceptually.

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 schema fully covers the input surface. The description correctly focuses on what the tool reports rather than parameter details, making the baseline 4 appropriate; there is no parameter semantics gap to compensate for.

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 clearly identifies the resource: Shizuku binder, permission, server UID/mode, and UserService state. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling status tools like android_shell_status or android_privileged_status because it is Shizuku-specific and enumerates exactly what is reported.

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 statement 'Shizuku is never selected implicitly' gives an explicit selection constraint: this tool should only be used when Shizuku status is explicitly requested, never as an automatic prerequisite. It does not name alternative sibling tools or describe scenarios where another status tool should be preferred, so it stops short of full when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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