Android API Level Reference

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known as read-only. The description adds behavioral context by stating it 'Returns minSdk guidance and critical API availability warnings', which is beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: the mapping function, then usage guidance, then input format examples, then the shortcut for full table. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, what outputs it returns (minSdk guidance, warnings), and how to use it. No gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description that already lists valid inputs. The description adds the extra valid value 'table' (and 'all') beyond what the schema says ('all' but not 'table'), and clarifies the purpose of the parameter for validation. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Maps Android API levels to version names, codenames, and key feature availability', providing a clear verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like android_api17_compliance and android_api36_compliance by focusing on reference mapping rather than compliance checking.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to validate that the APIs you plan to use are available at your project's minSdk', giving clear context. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the sibling tools imply alternatives for compliance checks.

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