as_gradle_assemble

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide basic safety info. The description adds value by stating that the tool produces .apk paths under build/outputs and returns JSON with gradle status, command, and outputs. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like modifying build directories or requiring specific SDK/Android versions.

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 concise at approximately 6 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and includes structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes meaningfully without redundancy.

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?

The description explains what the tool does, what it produces, and the return format, which is adequate for a build tool with an output schema. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., gradlew.bat existence) or error handling, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct usage.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter. The tool description reiterates these, adding concrete examples like 'Debug'/'Release' for variant and ':app' for module. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Build APK(s) with assemble<Variant>' and equates to Android Studio's 'Build > Build APK(s)', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like as_gradle_bundle or as_gradle_test, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage for building APKs by referencing the Android Studio action, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., as_gradle_bundle for AABs). No exclusions or context for choosing this specific gradle tool are given.

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