detectIntentChooser

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 states the tool detects a dialog but doesn't explain what happens upon detection (e.g., returns a boolean, triggers an action, or provides details). It also omits critical context like permissions needed, side effects, or error handling, which is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action ('detect') and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose.

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 of UI automation and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., detection status, dialog details) or behavioral traits like error cases. For a tool that likely interacts with device states, more context on usage and outcomes is needed to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't add unnecessary information.

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: detecting a system intent chooser dialog in the current view hierarchy. It uses specific verbs ('detect') and resources ('system intent chooser dialog', 'current view hierarchy'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'handleIntentChooser', which might handle or interact with the same dialog.

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, such as needing an active device or view hierarchy, or compare it to siblings like 'handleIntentChooser' for context on usage scenarios. This leaves the agent without explicit direction on application.

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