IDE problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: it may open the file in the IDE as a side effect. The no-Gradle statement also signals cost/speed characteristics an agent can use for planning.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the mechanism and side effect. No filler.

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 conveys what comes back (errors and warnings) and the side effect. It could note behavior when analysis has not finished within waitSec (partial results vs. empty) or point to the project-wide sibling, but core calling needs are met.

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 75% and documents path, project and waitSec well; only minSeverity lacks a schema description, and its enum values are self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the implicit mapping of "a file" to path, so baseline 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 resource (errors/warnings for a single file) plus the mechanism (Android Studio live analysis: compiler checks, Android Lint, inspections) and an explicit exclusion (no Gradle). This distinguishes it from project-wide and build-based siblings such as ide_project_problems and lint_results.

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?

"Without running Gradle" tells the agent when to prefer this over build/lint tools, and the file-level scope is clear. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not conditions (e.g., use ide_project_problems for repo-wide issues).

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