Android Studio status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful context (requires the bridge plugin, reports indexing state), but omits what actually happens when Studio is not running — an error, or a running=false payload — which is the main behavioral question for a status probe with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core subject, and every clause adds information (plugin caveat, version, projects, indexing). 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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so by enumerating the four reported fields. It stops short of stating the failure/not-running case, which is the remaining gap for an agent deciding how to react.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain; baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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?

The description names a specific resource (Android Studio via the bridge plugin) and enumerates the exact state it reports: running status, version, open projects, and indexing state. It is clearly a status/query tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as ide_sync_status or project_info.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the pre-flight check before calling other ide_* tools, but the description never says when to call it or when to prefer alternatives like ide_sync_status or environment. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parenthetical plugin mention.

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