framework_status

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds real value by disclosing that the call starts no external processes or apps (i.e., it is cheap and side-effect free) and by warning that 'installation checks are not device acceptance'. It does not describe output shape or failure modes, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the second sentence supplying a non-obvious caveat. No filler.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations, the definition supplies what an agent needs to decide to call it. The gap is that 'configuration and provider capabilities' remains abstract and the term 'REA' is never grounded, so the agent cannot anticipate what the response contains.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline of 4 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Android REA configuration and provider capabilities'), and bounds the scope by listing what it does NOT start (Java, Python, Ghidra, ADB, app). It stops short of 5 because 'REA' is unexplained jargon and it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling runtime_status.

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 'without starting...' clause implies the use case (a cheap pre-flight/config check before launching heavier tooling), but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use condition is given. The closing caveat steers interpretation of results rather than tool selection.

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