Project problems

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description adds real behavioral traits: it does not open the files in editors, does not run Gradle, defaults to errors only, and is cheaper/faster than a build. It does not say whether results reflect unsaved buffers, how stale cached analysis is, or what the file cap does to completeness, which keeps it below a 5.

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, no filler. The core action and its scope come first, and the differentiating speed/behavioral claims follow, so 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back (a list of problems with file, location, severity, message) and how the 300-file default cap affects coverage; it does neither. The safety profile and no-Gradle/no-open behavior are covered, so the gaps are modest but real for a tool the agent may rely on for feedback.

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 50%: paths and project are already documented in the schema, and the description only loosely echoes them ('over the project or given files/folders'). 'Errors only by default' explains the practical effect of minSeverity, but maxFiles (default 300, cap 5000) is never mentioned in schema or description, leaving a meaningful constraint undocumented.

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: run Android Studio's analysis (compiler checks, inspections, on-the-fly lint) over the project or given files/folders. It implicitly distinguishes itself from build/gradle_run ('without running Gradle') and from ide_open ('without opening them'), but never names the closest sibling, file-scoped ide_problems, or lint_results, so the boundary still requires inference.

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?

Gives a concrete usage context: 'faster than a build for checking an edit compiles', which tells the agent when this is preferable to a Gradle build. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'use ide_problems for the currently open file' or 'use lint_results for a full Gradle lint report'), so there is clear context but no when-not guidance.

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