Android Build & Publish Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on session state, caching, or return behavior. The one behavioral nuance (that content is normally not resent) lives only in the refresh parameter description, not here.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that opens with the core purpose and then lists scope. It is efficient, though the trailing keyword dump ('Google's Android CLI and skills') reads more like tag-stuffing than structured guidance.

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 reference-lookup tool with rich annotations, no output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description is adequate: an agent knows what topics it covers and that it is a safe, idempotent read. Nothing critical is missing, though routing context versus sibling reference tools is thin.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's topic list loosely overlaps the topic parameter examples but adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond what the schema provides — baseline 3.

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 a specific resource ('Build and release reference') and enumerates concrete content areas (R8/ProGuard, version catalogs, kapt→KSP, signing, AAB/Play publishing, Baseline Profiles). This distinguishes it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly separate itself from overlap candidates like android_official_search or gradle_dependency_checker.

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?

Usage is only implied: the topic list suggests when the reference is relevant (build/release questions), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent must infer routing from the topic keywords alone.

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