Android Error Debugger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing behavioral traits: parsing stacktraces, returning parsed error class, official explanations, and vetted fixes. It also includes a quality promise ('Never guess'), enhancing transparency beyond the annotation.

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 consists of three purposeful sentences: the first states the main action, the second provides input instructions, and the third summarizes output and quality promise. No extraneous words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description fully covers what the tool does, how to use it (input format), and what results to expect (parsed error, explanations, fixes). It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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% for the single parameter 'stacktrace', and its description already explains the input format. The tool description reiterates this ('Paste the full crash log or exception') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool parses Android/Kotlin stacktraces and searches official sources for causes and fixes. It specifies the input (full crash log) and output (parsed error class, explanations, vetted fixes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on stacktrace debugging.

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 instructs users to paste the full crash log or exception, implying use when a stacktrace is available. It explicitly grounds debugging in official sources. While it does not list when not to use or alternative tools, the clear context and unique functionality make it effective.

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