Run Espresso/UI instrumented tests

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

The description discloses the return structure (success, testResults, compile errors, etc.) and reuse of JUnitXmlParser. It is consistent with annotations (no contradiction) and adds behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences: first states the core function, second covers return format and reuse. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured, with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the return format and references a related tool, which is sufficient given the 5 parameters are fully documented in the schema and the tool has no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how `testClass` and `testMethod` interact for filtering, and notes default values for `module`, `tailBytes`, and `timeoutMs`.

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 explicitly states it runs `:<module>:connectedDebugAndroidTest` against an attached device, with optional filtering to a single class or method. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like `devilge_run_gradle_task`.

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 Android instrumented tests and references `devilge_run_gradle_task` for comparison, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for other test types.

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