Android Large Screen & Adaptive Layout Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds the content scope but says nothing about return format, caching, or how 'refresh' changes session behavior — some value, but thin beyond the annotations.

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 listing scope in compact noun-phrase form — efficient with no filler. It is arguably a bare list rather than prose, but every element 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?

For a read-only reference tool with no output schema, annotations carrying the safety profile, and full schema coverage, the description conveys enough scope to call it correctly. Only minor gaps remain (no sibling routing, no return-shape hint).

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 'leave empty for index' behavior of topic. The description's topic list loosely echoes the topic parameter examples but adds no format or matching semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 — an Android large-screen/tablet/foldable reference — and enumerates the concrete topics it covers (WindowSizeClass, NavigationSuiteScaffold, ListDetailPaneScaffold, hinge handling, continuity, Play checklist). An agent can tell it is a topical reference tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like android_scalability_guide or android_official_search.

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 agent infers it should query this for large-screen/adaptive-layout questions. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to a sibling (e.g. android_official_search for general Android docs), and the 'Leave empty for index' hint lives in the schema rather than guiding tool selection.

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