runtime_status

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful boundary context by stating that it does not install software or attach to an application, which is more specific than the annotations alone. It does not describe return format or authentication needs, but those are less critical for this read-only status tool.

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 primary purpose and followed by a useful scope limitation. No unnecessary repetition or padding.

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 read-only status tool with one fully described optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what is inspected and what side effects are excluded. It could say more about what the status result contains, but that 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?

There is one optional parameter, analysis_project_id, and schema description coverage is 100%. The schema already documents its purpose and caveat, while the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: inspect the local Android runtime integration and installed ADB/Frida versions. The exclusion of installing software and attaching to an application distinguishes it from sibling tools such as install_adb_package, start_adb_app, and add_java_hooks.

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 implies when to use it by saying it inspects runtime/version status, and it explicitly says what it does not do (install software, attach to an application). However, it does not name alternative tools or give a clear 'use this when...' condition, so the guidance is only implied.

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