avd_run_and_screenshot

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 starting an AVD, running a command, and taking a screenshot, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the AVD persists after execution, error handling, or what the screenshot output entails (e.g., format, storage location). For a tool with multiple actions and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Sobe AVD se necessário, roda comando (pnpm/gradle/etc) e tira screenshot.' It efficiently outlines the main actions without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the steps for clarity.

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 complexity (multiple actions: start AVD, run command, take screenshot), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what happens if the AVD fails to start, how commands are executed, or what the tool returns (e.g., screenshot data or success status), leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the parameter names: it doesn't explain what 'avdName' refers to, what types of 'command' are valid, or the purpose of 'waitMsAfterRun'. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for this lack of coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Sobe AVD se necessário, roda comando (pnpm/gradle/etc) e tira screenshot.' This translates to 'Starts AVD if necessary, runs a command (pnpm/gradle/etc) and takes a screenshot.' It specifies the verb (start, run, take screenshot) and resource (AVD, command execution). However, since there are no sibling tools, it doesn't need to differentiate from alternatives, so it doesn't achieve the highest score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, scenarios where it's appropriate, or any exclusions. The phrase 'se necessário' (if necessary) implies some conditional usage but doesn't specify what makes it necessary, leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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