Start emulator

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the async job model and the polling contract, which the schema cannot express. However, it omits other behavioral facts an agent needs: that behavior when an AVD is already booted, that wipeData is irreversible (only implied by the schema's parenthetical), and roughly how long a boot typically takes.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the async/polling contract is front-loaded immediately after the core action. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state that a job is returned, covering the most important return-value gap. It stops short of saying what the job object contains (id, status) or how to interpret a completed vs pending job, which is the only meaningful omission for a 5-parameter tool.

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% and each parameter carries a clear description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description references waitSec's role as the point after which a job is returned, adding a little meaning, but adds nothing about coldBoot, headless, or wipeData.

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 ('Boot an AVD') plus the key behavioral twist (background, waits for boot completion). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings emulator_list, emulator_stop, and job_status.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to job_status when the boot doesn't finish inside waitSec, which is the main follow-up decision an agent faces. It doesn't offer exclusions (e.g., what to do if the AVD is already running) or guidance on when to prefer coldBoot/wipeData.

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