Wear OS Developer Guide

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds behavioral context by framing the tool as a reference guide and detailing the content coverage (e.g., critical differences, specific topics).

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and critical warnings, followed by a list of topics. It is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds information. Could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 tool's breadth (multiple topics), the description provides sufficient context for a developer to understand its scope and content. No output schema is needed for a guide, and the description covers essential aspects.

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%, yet the description enriches the 'topic' parameter by elaborating on each option (e.g., 'compose' covers ScalingLazyColumn, Chip, navigation). This adds value beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 'Wear OS development reference' with specific topics (Wear OS 5, Material 3 Expressive) and distinguishes it from other Android guides (e.g., android_large_screen_guide, android_xr_guide) by focusing on Wear OS-specific components and APIs.

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 Wear OS development by contrasting phone Compose with Wear Compose and listing correct components. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling tool names indicate alternative guides for other Android topics.

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