as_sdk_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that fetching available packages involves a network call (timeout parameter) and that the return includes 'installed' and 'available' lists with path, version, description, and raw output. This extra context goes beyond the annotations.

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 and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is meaningful: it states the purpose, parameter effects, and return format without redundancy. The front-loading of the main action ('List installed...') makes it easy to grasp quickly.

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 tool's simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how parameters affect behavior, and the structure of the return value. With annotations confirming it is safe and idempotent, no additional behavioral details are required. The presence of an output schema is mentioned but not needed since the description already specifies the return format.

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 provides a description for 'installed_only' but not for 'timeout'. The description adds meaning by indicating that 'timeout' is related to the network operation when fetching available packages. It also briefly explains the effect of 'installed_only'. While the schema already covers some semantics, the description compensates for the missing parameter description and ties the parameters to the tool's behavior.

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 states the tool's purpose: listing installed and optionally available Android SDK packages. The verb 'List' combined with 'installed (and optionally available) Android SDK packages' is specific and unambiguous. Among sibling tools, it is distinct from other list tools (e.g., as_avd_list) because it targets SDK packages.

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 explains the effect of the 'installed_only' parameter (fast vs network fetch) and mentions the timeout parameter, giving context on when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, and there is no guidance on prerequisites like having the SDK installed.

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