Open in Android Studio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful behavior: the running IDE window is reused if one is open. It does not say what happens when Studio isn't running, whether the call blocks until the IDE responds, or whether it fails for invalid paths — significant gaps for a tool that mutates the human's desktop state.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the window-reuse caveat in a parenthetical; no filler. The trailing usage note earns its place but is slightly buried after the behavioral detail.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage mean the description needs to be more complete than it is: it omits what the call returns, what happens when Android Studio isn't already running, and how 'column' interacts with 'line'. Adequate for a simple hand-off action, but not fully specified.

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 only 33% (only 'path' is documented), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'path' may be a project directory or a file and that 'line' positions within a file, but 'column' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of three parameters opaque.

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: 'Open a project, or a file at a line, in Android Studio'. That is concrete enough to act on, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'ide_open', which sounds like it does nearly the same thing, so the agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

'Handy for handing off to the human' implies the usage context — surfacing a project/file in the human's IDE — but gives no explicit when-not conditions and never names 'ide_open' or 'ide_read_file' as alternatives. The agent must infer the split from the sibling list.

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