Boot emulator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers key behaviors: booting in the background, waiting for Android to finish booting, returning the adb serial, and the wipeData factory-reset side effect. It does not mention edge cases like behavior if the AVD is already booted or error handling, but the core operational details are transparent.

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?

The description is only two sentences long, with the primary action and outcome front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: the second sentence clarifies an optional parameter. There is no fluff or repetition of the title/name, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of the tool (booting, waiting, returning a serial, optional wipe), the description covers the main behavior and return value adequately. The schema covers all parameters, and the lack of an output schema is acceptable because the return value (adb serial) is explicitly stated. It could have mentioned failure behavior or timeouts, but for a boot tool, the description is largely complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value only for wipeData ('factory-reset the AVD on boot'), which partially mirrors the schema's 'erases all data'. It does not enrich avdName or timeoutSeconds beyond what the schema already states, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb ('Boot') and resource ('an AVD'), and adds the key outcome ('wait until Android finishes booting' and 'Returns the adb serial'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kill_emulator, create_avd, and list_avds, which have different purposes.

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 description implies when to use the tool (before interacting with an AVD, as it boots in the background and waits for completion), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of other tools like kill_emulator or create_avd for comparison, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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