Scaffold Android project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the main action (creating a project) and the outcome (ready for build_app), but omits side-effect details such as what happens if the directory exists, error conditions, or whether any files are overwritten. The schema's constraint on directory (must not exist or be empty) is not repeated.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs essential details without waste. It clearly states what is created and its key properties, earning every word.

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 scaffolding tool with no output schema, the description covers the project type, key features, and readiness for build_app. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites or return behavior, but it is sufficient for a straightforward creation action.

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 100%—all parameters have descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; it only mentions high-level project characteristics, not how appName/packageName/directory are used.

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 starts with 'Create a new minimal Jetpack Compose app project', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing project characteristics (single module, version catalog, Gradle wrapper) and explicitly ties to build_app, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use when creating a new Android project, and the mention 'ready to build with build_app' gives context on the intended workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like discover_projects for existing projects.

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