Run instrumented tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output ('parsed summary') and a prerequisite (booted device), but it omits whether the tool builds the project, installs the app, or modifies the device state, and does not hint at runtime duration. For a test runner, these are significant behavioral details an agent would need.

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 remarkably concise: two short sentences with no padding. The parenthetical adds a useful technical reference (the Gradle task name), and every word earns its place. Excellent structure for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must supply all contextual essentials. It covers the core action, a key prerequisite, and the output nature, but the 'parsed summary' is vague and build/install behavior is omitted. For a tool with three optional parameters and moderate complexity, this is a minimal but not fully complete description.

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 of all three parameters (module, variant, projectDir), each with a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it simply meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 action ('Run instrumented tests'), the target resource ('on a connected device/emulator'), and even names the underlying Gradle task ('connected<Variant>AndroidTest'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like test_app, the 'instrumented' qualifier and device/emulator context effectively differentiate it.

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 communicates a prerequisite ('Requires a booted device') and implies the use case for instrumented tests on a device/emulator. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like test_app, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is present but implicit.

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