configure_android_build

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description clearly states it configures settings, implying mutation. The description adds context about optimization for specific hardware but doesn't detail side effects or permissions. Still, it is fairly transparent.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose and target device, second lists key settings. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 13 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and key behaviors. It could mention that the tool sets recommended defaults customizable by parameters, but it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline 3. The description highlights key parameters (ARM64 architecture, IL2CPP, minimum API level) but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for all 13 parameters.

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 explicitly states the tool configures Android build settings optimized for a specific device (XREAL One Pro on Samsung S24) and lists key settings (ARM64, IL2CPP, minimum API), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'build_pipeline' or 'build_xreal_apk'.

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 implies usage for XREAL One Pro on Samsung S24 but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives among siblings like 'setup_xreal_project' or 'build_pipeline'. Guidance is only implicit.

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