Mobile SDK Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the topical scope of the generated output; it says nothing about auth requirements, whether guidance is version-pinned behavior, or any rate/format constraints, so it adds modest value beyond annotations.

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 naming the deliverable first and the covered topics second, with no filler. It is tight, though slightly under-specified rather than genuinely concise in the sense of covering what an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 7-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no required fields, the description leaves the agent unable to reason about how platform, attributionProvider, participantState, or the boolean flags shape the generated guide.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description explains none of them. 'attribution' loosely hints at attributionProvider, but platform, campaignId, mobilePublicKey, participantState, includeInstallSnippets, and serverVerifiedQualifyingAction receive no meaning from either the schema or the description.

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 ('Generate native iOS/Android SDK 0.6.0 guidance') and enumerates covered topics (attribution, shareUrl, trackShare, native Window), so the agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from similar generation siblings such as growsurf_client_snippets, growsurf_api_library_snippets, or growsurf_integration_guide.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though several sibling tools (client_snippets, api_library_snippets, integration_guide, grsf_config_snippet) plausibly overlap with SDK guidance. The agent must infer the selection condition entirely on its own.

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