status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating call, so the description's job is to say what comes back — and with no output schema it does exactly that by enumerating the state dimensions covered. It adds no cost, latency, or failure-mode context (e.g. what happens if Waydroid isn't running), which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loading "Waydroid's state" gets to the point immediately and the closing "Call this first" lands the key directive. The middle is a long comma-run of nouns that is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what diagnostics are available.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status call with a 100%-covered schema, the enumeration of returned state effectively substitutes for the missing output schema, so an agent knows what to expect. Only the response encoding/format is left unstated, 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 are zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends none of its text on inputs.

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 names the resource (Waydroid's state) and enumerates the concrete contents — session/container, adb serial, boot status, Android/LineageOS versions, graphics, per-app window service, root setup. That is specific enough to distinguish it from narrow siblings like session or root_access, but it is a noun-phrase list with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool *reports* rather than configures this state.

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?

"Call this first" is an explicit, actionable directive that establishes this as the entry point for the whole toolset, which is genuine usage guidance rather than implied. It does not say when *not* to call it or name a cheaper alternative (e.g. session or root_access) for a narrower need, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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