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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses the implementation (`pm path`), the output composition (base plus split APKs), per-entry fields (path, sizeBytes, role), and the exact return envelope (`{ ok, packageName, apks }`). It omits failure-mode details for missing packages, but the `ok` field implies error handling.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and uses compact, information-dense sentences. The cross-reference to device_file_pull and the inline output shape replace a missing output schema without bloat.

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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: required inputs come from the schema, output shape is stated, and the follow-up pull workflow is explained. No critical information is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, since all it says about packageName is implied by 'installed app' and udid is already defined in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List APK file paths for an installed app' via `pm path`. It clearly distinguishes this from generic file tools like device_file_list and from pulling tools like device_file_pull by naming the exact artifact type and split APK categories.

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 establishes the correct workflow by explicitly instructing the agent to use device_file_pull on each path to fetch bytes, including size caps. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the use case is narrowly defined enough that this is a minor omission.

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