Android XR 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 elsewhere. The description adds genuine context beyond that — that the content covers beta/RC releases (Compose for XR beta, ARCore RC) — which matters for an agent judging freshness, but it says nothing about content size or staleness.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with scope before the topic enumeration. The topic list is duplicated between the first parenthetical and the trailing 'Topics:' clause, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

A read-only, low-complexity reference tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description covers scope, topics and release-channel caveats adequately; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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% and both parameters have inline descriptions, so the schema carries the load. The description restates the same topic list almost verbatim, adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific resource (Android XR / Jetpack XR reference) and enumerates the concrete artifacts covered (SpatialPanel, UserSubspace, Orbiter, ARCore for XR), which distinguishes it from the wear/large-screen guides. It is not a verb-led tool, but for a documentation-retrieval tool the scope statement is clear enough to select it.

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 implied by domain: consult this when building XR experiences. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use, and no routing to siblings such as android_large_screen_guide or android_component_status for overlapping questions.

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