get_android_cli_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says 'Returns,' implying a non-mutating read operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes, has no side effects, or clarify any limitations. For a simple reference getter this is adequate but not fully 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. It is not padded with filler, though the parenthetical list of workflows is slightly dense. Overall, it earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it states exactly what will be returned and the main sections. The schema covers the parameter's default behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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 schema already provides 100% coverage by describing the 'section' parameter with an enum and a description. The tool description adds meaning by mapping the enum values to actual content: commands → CLI command reference, skills → Google Skills, workflows → ITGD protocols. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Which section to return' and helps the agent select appropriate sections.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'full Android CLI command reference, available Google Skills, and ITGD agentic workflow protocols.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_architecture_patterns or run_android_cli, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 this tool is used to retrieve Android CLI references and workflow protocols, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like run_android_cli or get_git_workflow are not mentioned, so 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.