Gradle sync status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the possible result states (running / succeeded / failed with error); since there is no output schema, this is the only place an agent learns what comes back. It stops short of describing error detail or whether a stale prior sync is reported.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and ends with the enumerated return states. No filler, nothing out of order.

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 one-param, annotation-covered read tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the essential missing piece: the set of possible states. It could go further on failure details or multi-project scoping, but nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one optional parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage with a precise defaulting rule (project containing path, else active). The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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 resource and scope: the state of the most recent Gradle sync in Android Studio. This is clearly a status read, distinguishable from the mutating sibling ide_gradle_sync, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

The word "status" implies a read-only check, which is enough to infer usage versus ide_gradle_sync or gradle_run. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and polling behavior (call repeatedly while 'running') is left to inference.

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