run_project_debug

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses all behavioral details: adb forwarding, device API call, blocking mode, return values (port and config snippet), and the attach workflow. It also explains how breakpoints are hit and how to stop, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's operation.

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 well-structured but somewhat verbose, containing detailed step-by-step behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and prerequisites, but could be slightly more concise by omitting redundant operational details. Still, it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (debugging setup with multiple steps), the description is highly complete. It covers prerequisites, technical process, return values, usage tips, and stop instructions. No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the return format.

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?

The only parameter 'name' is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add extra semantics. It uses the parameter in context but does not elaborate on its format or constraints beyond the schema, which is acceptable but adds no additional value.

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 states the tool's purpose: to start an Android project in debug mode for VS Code/Cursor attachment via debugpy. It uniquely identifies the action (debug startup) and resource (Android project), distinguishing it from siblings like run_project (non-debug) and stop_project (stop).

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 explicitly provides prerequisites (Android platform, ADB connection), usage context (debugging with IDE), and exclusions (iOS not supported). It also directs the user to call stop_project to stop debugging, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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