list_avds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists AVDs that 'can be booted', implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any side effects, permissions needed, or how the list is obtained (e.g., from local files or ADB). For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, some behavioral context is missing.

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 two sentences long with no extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose ('List the Android Virtual Devices') and adds a practical usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and how the output is used. A minor gap is lack of detail on output format (e.g., list of strings, JSON) or edge cases (e.g., no AVDs installed), but the description suffices for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds clarity by explaining what the tool returns (AVD names) and their purpose. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description compensates well by explaining the output usage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Android Virtual Devices (AVDs) installed on this machine', and distinguishes the tool's scope (listing installed AVDs). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_devices' or 'boot_emulator' beyond stating where the names feed into.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Start here when no emulator is running yet') and indicates the next step ('the returned names feed boot_emulator'), which implies a workflow. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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