start_emulator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it starts an emulator and waits up to 60 seconds for it to come online, which is crucial for timing and automation. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or what happens if the emulator fails to start within the timeout.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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 moderate complexity (starting an emulator with a timeout), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and timing but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or dependencies, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'avd_name' clearly documented as 'Name of the AVD to start (from list_avds)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 specific action ('Start an Android emulator') and the resource ('AVD'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_avds' (which lists emulators) or 'list_devices' (which lists connected devices). It explicitly mentions the waiting behavior, which is unique to this tool.

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 by referencing 'avd_name' from 'list_avds', suggesting this tool should be used after listing available AVDs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adb_shell' for direct commands or provide clear exclusions (e.g., not for physical devices).

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