previewapk_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does list the fields surfaced (app, session status, driver, links), which is useful, but it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether it has side effects, whether a device must be active, or how results are scoped. For a zero-annotation tool this leaves the safety and behavior profile largely unstated.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the subject (owner's device state) and then enumerates the returned fields. Nothing is redundant, though the terse enumeration style borders on under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the fields returned. It still omits whether the call is read-only, what happens with zero devices attached, and how this relates to previewapk_list_devices or previewapk_use_device. Adequate but with clear gaps for a device-status tool.

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 single 'device' parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the plural 'device(s)' combined with an optional filter implies that omitting the parameter returns state for all of the owner's devices rather than failing. That is a genuine semantic contribution.

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 phrase 'State of the owner's PreviewAPK device(s)' identifies a status/read concept and enumerates what it surfaces (attached app, session status, driver, links), which sets it apart from action siblings like previewapk_tap or previewapk_screenshot. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the actual operation is only implied rather than stated. Purpose is inferable but not crisply defined.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. An agent must guess that this is the 'check current state' entry point versus previewapk_list_devices or previewapk_use_device. No prerequisites (e.g., whether a device must be selected first) are given.

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