Environment

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, and the description reinforces that by framing it as a report. It adds useful behavioral context by previewing the reported fields, which matters because there is no output schema, though it says nothing about failure modes when the server can't detect a toolchain.

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 with no filler: the content list comes first, the actionable usage cue second. Nothing repeats the name or title.

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?

For a read-only diagnostic with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what will be returned, when to reach for it, and that the project is resolved on the server side. No meaningful gap remains.

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 the single projectDir parameter is fully documented there, including its ANDROID_PROJECT_DIR / cwd default. The description only alludes to it via "the resolved project," so the schema does the substantive work and the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ("Report") and enumerates exactly what the resource covers: SDK path and installed packages, Android Studio install, JAVA_HOME, and the resolved project. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like device_info or project_info, which concern a device or a project rather than the host toolchain.

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?

"Call this first when something isn't found" gives an explicit trigger condition an agent can act on. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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