status_android

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

No annotations are given, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a read-only operation and the sentence discloses what data is returned (version codes, status, rollout fraction). However, it says nothing about permissions, auth scope, pagination, or behavior when the app has no releases.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the key details front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though it could be augmented without 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the shape of the tool is simple. Still, the required package_name parameter is entirely undocumented, which is a meaningful gap for the agent invoking it.

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 0% and the description never mentions the sole required parameter, package_name. An agent must guess that this string is the Android application's package identifier and what format it takes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list Google Play releases of every track, including version codes, status and rollout fraction. The 'Google Play' scope distinguishes it from the sibling status_ios, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as status_ios or promote_android, and no stated preconditions. The agent must infer the usage context solely from the tool name and the phrase 'every track'.

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