List AVDs

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the behavioral detail that the tool reports running status in addition to listing AVDs, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose output format or any edge cases.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the purpose with a clear verb and object. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully captures the core functionality and adds the running-status distinction. There is no output schema, but the output is predictable from the description, making it 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds meaning by specifying what is listed (available AVDs and running status), which is the relevant context for the tool's behavior with no parameters.

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 lists available Android Virtual Devices and indicates which are running. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('AVDs'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_avd or delete_avd.

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 gives clear context on what the tool does (lists AVDs and running state), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit usage guidance.

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