android_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds useful context about what information is exposed, aligning with the annotations without 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?

The description is extremely concise, listing three key data categories in one line and adding the actionable hint 'Start here.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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 simple status-gathering tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the kind of information returned (state, capabilities, display geometry). The 'Start here' hint adds helpful context for an agent deciding where to begin.

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 takes no parameters, and the schema confirms this. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: reporting phone state, enabled capabilities, and display geometry. 'Start here' signals its role as an entry point, distinguishing it from more specific sibling tools like android_device_info or android_ui_tree, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

'Start here' implies this tool should be called early to discover device state and capabilities, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is present but minimal.

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