fluidity_debug_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it is ambiguous whether the tool actually executes commands or merely generates them. The phrase 'runs the full fluidity debug protocol' conflicts slightly with 'generates Android CLI commands,' and there is no explanation of side effects, permissions, or what 'ACR analysis' involves. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect usage.

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 a single long sentence with awkward punctuation (em dash, plus signs) and a trailing 'screen: home|player|search' that repeats schema info. It is not well-structured or concise, though it does avoid unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool is a workflow that generates commands, but the description does not clarify what the output should be used for or how the agent should proceed after generation. The lack of an output schema means the description should explain expected return values, but it only vaguely mentions 'ACR analysis.' It is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond repeating the screen enum; project_dir is only mentioned in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 function: it runs the full fluidity debug protocol, loads standards, and generates Android CLI commands for inspection, screenshots, and ACR analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_android_cli by framing this as a higher-level workflow, though it could be more specific about what 'full protocol' entails.

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 the tool is used when a complete debug workflow is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like run_android_cli or check_ui_fluidity. There is no mention of exclusions or fallback scenarios, leaving the agent to infer the context.

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