boot_emulator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the blocking wait for boot completion and the returned serial, which are useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the AVD is already booted, potential failure modes, or side effects of wipe_data. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and includes the critical wait behavior and return value. There is no unnecessary wording, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately notes the return serial. However, it omits details about error handling, behavior when the emulator is already booted, or prerequisites like the AVD existing. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, this is moderately complete but leaves some gaps.

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 schema already covers 67% of parameters (avd and wipe_data have descriptions). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying timeout_seconds or explaining the interplay between parameters. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description adds no incremental value.

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 action (boot), the resource (Android emulator), and the key qualifier (by AVD name). It also includes the behavioral detail of waiting until boot completes and the return value (device serial), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_emulators or shutdown_emulator.

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 its use for booting an emulator, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It could have noted that it should be used before interacting with an emulator or referenced list_emulators for finding AVD names.

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