Wear OS Developer Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds content-scope context (which topics exist, and that Wear-specific Compose APIs differ from phone ones), but says nothing about return volume, versioning, or caching behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the key differentiation fact. The trailing topic list is slightly redundant with the schema enum, which keeps it from a 5.

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 documentation lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what domain and subtopics are covered and that the guidance is Wear-specific, which is enough to call it correctly. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though version applicability is unstated.

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 in the schema. The description's 'Topics:' list merely restates the topic parameter's enum values and says nothing extra about 'refresh' or about what a given topic returns. 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?

Names a specific resource (Wear OS reference) and pins down its scope with concrete API names (ScalingLazyColumn, SwipeDismissableNavHost, Wear Material 3) plus covered areas (Tiles, Health Services). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling guides like android_large_screen_guide or android_navigation3_guide by domain, though it never explicitly names them.

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 — 'uses different Compose artifacts than phones' hints this is for Wear OS targets rather than phone UI, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The baseline for the topic argument is left to inference.

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