boot_emulator

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does well by noting that the emulator launches detached and waits for full boot by default. However, it omits details about error handling, what happens if the AVD does not exist, or the potential destructiveness of the 'wipe_data' parameter (though that is in the schema).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, what it returns, how it behaves (detached, waits), and a usage hint. It does not cover edge cases like multiple boots or error states, but it is sufficient for typical use.

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%, so the base score is 3. The description does not add significant new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions the return value (serial) but that is not a parameter detail.

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 ('Boot an AVD by name'), the resource ('AVD'), and the output ('return its device serial'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_avds' (which lists but does not boot) and 'shutdown_emulator' by specifying the boot and launch behavior.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (e.g., 'Use the returned serial for later tools if you boot more than one device') and sets expectations about boot duration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'list_avds' to check existing devices.

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