as_gradle_bundle

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns JSON with status and outputs, and implies it produces bundle files. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files or required environment setup (e.g., gradlew). The behavioral info is minimal but non-contradictory.

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, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence. It uses a structured Args/Returns format. The placeholder 'bundle<Variant>' is slightly unclear, but overall it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return fields beyond mentioning JSON with status and outputs. However, it omits to mention that project_dir must contain gradlew, which is only in the schema. For a build tool, additional context like required command (Gradle) would improve completeness.

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 has full descriptions for all parameters. The description lists the parameters (project_dir, variant, module, timeout) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 0% description coverage in the context signal, the description is redundant, so baseline 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?

The description explicitly states 'Build an Android App Bundle (.aab)', which is a specific verb and resource format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like as_gradle_assemble (likely builds APK) by specifying the output type. The name also aligns with building bundles.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like as_gradle_assemble for APK builds or as_aab_build_apks. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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