Android Build & Publish Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds specific behavioral context by enumerating the topics covered (e.g., R8, signing, baseline profiles), clarifying what information the tool provides.

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 relatively long (over 90 words) and includes a bullet-like list of topics. While it front-loads the purpose, the list adds verbosity. It could be more concise by grouping related topics or using a summary.

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 complexity of a reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the scope of topics but does not describe the output format or behavior when no topic is provided. It is complete enough for a read-only reference.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'topic' with examples. The tool description adds only a few example values but does not provide additional semantic 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 clearly identifies the tool as a complete Android build pipeline and Play Store publishing reference, listing specific topics like R8, ProGuard, Gradle Version Catalogs, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like API compliance or testing.

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 usage for build and publishing questions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like gradle_dependency_checker or android_official_search. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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