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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether the target APK is modified in place, whether a backup or output copy is created, what happens on failure mid-repack, or what the result looks like. For a mutating binary-patching tool this is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and capabilities stated immediately, and the parenthetical enumeration is an efficient way to convey the action space. No filler wording, though it is arguably too terse for the tool's risk profile.

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?

This is a destructive-capable binary tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover safety and result behavior — and it does not. An agent cannot tell where patched output lands, whether originals are preserved, or what a successful run returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, making the baseline 3. The description adds marginal meaning by expanding three of the four action values into concrete operations, but it leaves 'crypto_inspect' unexplained and says nothing about 'extra_args' syntax.

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?

States a specific verb ('Jalankan') and resource ('alat automasi bedah biner APK lokal') and enumerates three concrete capabilities (debloat, MITM patch, align/repack). However, it omits the fourth enum action 'crypto_inspect', so the stated purpose is slightly narrower than what the tool actually does. Siblings are unrelated tool families, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites stated (e.g., decompiled folder vs APK path, toolchain availability), and no indication of when NOT to use it. The action list hints at use cases but provides no selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. Calling it a 'gateway' to an external API hints at a proxy/read passthrough, but nothing states whether calls are read-only, whether credentials or a network dependency on forex.mobile are required, what happens on an invalid broker slug, or how failures surface.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the three capabilities are listed up front. It is efficient, though the gateway metaphor consumes words that a direct verb would have used more productively.

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?

With only three fully documented parameters, one required, a complete enum, and no output schema, the structured fields do most of the work. What is missing is behavioral context an agent would want before invoking an external-API proxy — failure modes, response shape in prose, or any auth/environment prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 100% and the endpoint enum is fully enumerated, so the schema already explains broker, broker_b, and endpoint. The description adds only the vocabulary of the three result types, which roughly mirrors the enum values but does not clarify the conditional dependency (broker for 'broker', broker_b for 'compare') beyond what the schema says.

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 names the resource (real forex rate data, broker list, broker comparison) and its source (forex.mobile API), which maps cleanly onto the four endpoint modes. It lacks a crisp verb like 'get/fetch' — 'pintu gerbang untuk meminta data' is metaphor rather than action — but an agent can still tell what the tool returns.

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?

Listing the three data categories implicitly tells the agent when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no exclusions, and no referenced alternatives. The sibling tools (skills, frida, apk) are unrelated, so mis-routing risk is low, which keeps this at an implied-usage 3 rather than lower.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the scripts are "siap pakai" (ready to use) but never states whether the result is returned as text, written to disk, or whether any side effect occurs, nor what happens with target_package or whether the generated script is validated. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though that brevity is partly why the behavioral and usage gaps exist.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least characterize the return value (source text vs. file path) and any environment requirements. For a two-parameter generator tool the current sentence is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about the result and about how target_package interacts with presets.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (preset enum and optional target_package) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's mention of the use cases loosely mirrors the preset values but adds no syntax or selection logic beyond what the enum already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Hasilkan skrip Frida dynamic hooking") and enumerates the concrete use cases (SSL pinning bypass, root cloaking, crypto interception) that correspond to the preset enum values. It is not tautological and an agent can tell what it produces, though the mapping from prose use cases to the four named presets is implicit.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. rooted device, app already installed), and no mention of alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated in domain, so the lack of differentiation there is not the problem — the problem is that nothing tells the agent which preset to pick or when this tool is appropriate versus manual approach.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It signals a read operation and hints at document size, but says nothing about what is actually returned (full text dump?), whether there is truncation or pagination on the 112 KB variant, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor redundancy in restating the 112 KB size that the schema enum already declares.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with a fully described enum and no output schema, this is close to adequate. The only real gap is the unspecified default when 'version' is omitted and the unstated return shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the enum already documents both modes with their sizes, so the description is largely redundant here. It does not state the default behavior when 'version' is omitted (it is optional), which is the one piece of meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Baca' / read) and a concrete resource ('pasal hukum dan aturan arsitektur'), and clarifies the two content forms (active AGENTS.md vs. the 112 KB monolith). It does not differentiate this tool from any of the listed siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 purpose implies when to call it (you need to consult the architecture rules), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of when to prefer 'active' over 'monolith', and no reference to any alternative tool for rule lookup.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does characterize the payload (full technical guidelines, operational instructions, code references), which implies a read-only, potentially large retrieval, but it says nothing about behavior when the skill name is unknown, whether output is truncated, or how large the returned guide can be.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the returned content, and the key, with zero filler. Nothing in it could be removed without losing meaning.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys content type but omits what an agent most needs beyond that: failure behavior for unknown skill names and an indication of return size or structure.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries an explanation with concrete example skill names. The description only restates that lookup is by name, adding no format, casing, or matching-rule details beyond the schema – the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Ambil' – retrieve) and resource ('pedoman teknis lengkap, petunjuk operasional, dan referensi kode dari suatu skill') plus the lookup key ('berdasarkan namanya'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rule or search_skills, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it already knows a skill name and wants its documentation. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_skills (to find a skill) or get_rule (to fetch a rule), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the result is paginated or size-limited, or what an agent should expect from a large skill repository; only the implicit 'list' verb suggests safety.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, so it is easy to scan. The trailing parenthetical slightly duplicates what the schema enum already provides, but it is not wasteful enough to hurt readability.

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?

This is a simple zero-required-parameter list tool, so the description's brevity is defensible. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the shape or scale of what comes back (e.g., that it returns name/description per skill) to help the agent plan its next call.

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% and the single `category` parameter has an enum with a documented default, so the schema already fully explains the input. The description's parenthetical ('Custom, Builtin, & Trading-Quantitative') merely echoes enum values and adds no new meaning such as filtering behavior or defaults.

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 names a specific verb ('Dapatkan' / get) and resource ('daftar seluruh keahlian/Skills') and enumerates the source categories, so the agent knows it retrieves a complete skill listing. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as search_skills or get_skill_guide, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between 'list all' and 'search'.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus search_skills or get_skill_guide, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word 'seluruh' (entire) hints at an unfiltered listing, but this is inference rather than guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says it 'runs' a binary. It does not state that arguments are passed raw to /usr/local/bin/rea, what the execution environment or side effects are, whether the operations are destructive, or how errors and output are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves the guidance gaps noted in the other dimensions.

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 free-form passthrough executor with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin. It should at least sketch the shape of valid arguments and what a call returns, since neither structured field supplies that information.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of decompilation, graph inspection and disassembly hints at the subcommands that go into command_args, but it never clarifies the argument structure (e.g., whether the first element is the subcommand or a flag).

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 gives a specific verb ('menjalankan' / run) and resource (REA binary tools), and names three concrete operation types: decompilation, app graph inspection, and disassembler. It does not differentiate from execution siblings such as execute_apk_tool or generate_frida_script, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this gateway over siblings like execute_apk_tool, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the generic escape hatch for the rea binary purely from the binary path in the schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It says results are 'relevan' but does not disclose ranking behavior, result count limits, whether matching is literal or fuzzy, or what the response looks like, all of which matter for a search tool with sibling list/guide tools.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the matching basis. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though the terseness contributes to the missing behavioral detail.

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 single-parameter search with no output schema, the definition covers the core purpose adequately. It still leaves what comes back and how results are ordered unexplained, which the agent needs in order to decide between searching and listing.

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% and the schema already documents the single query parameter with concrete examples ('smali', 'ssl pinning', 'trading', 'cloudflare'). The description merely restates that the input is a topic or problem keyword, so it adds little beyond the schema and the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource (search skills) and adds the matching basis (topic or problem keyword), so the agent knows this is a relevance search rather than a full listing. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling list_antigravity_skills, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'topik atau masalah yang dihadapi' — it suggests calling this when the agent has a topic or problem in mind. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of how this relates to list_antigravity_skills or get_skill_guide, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this call has side effects, whether state persists between invocations, how the thought/thoughtNumber loop is meant to terminate, or what the response contains. The critical behavioral trait of this pattern — that each call registers one step in a chain and the agent must repeat the call until nextThoughtNeeded is false — is left entirely undisclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy or filler beyond a slightly ornamental adjective stack. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail an agent actually needs.

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 four-required-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the schema fully covers parameter names and meanings, so the minimum is met. However, the iterative call-until-done protocol that defines correct invocation is missing from both the description and the annotations, leaving a real gap for an agent that must decide whether to call again.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four required parameters are already documented in Indonesian in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters interact (for example, that thoughtNumber should increment monotonically or that totalThoughts is an estimate). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific activity: step-by-step deep reasoning for solving complex technical dilemmas, and names the tool's mechanism (Sequential Thinking). It is clear what the tool is for, though the phrasing 'alur kontemplasi nalar mendalam bertingkat' is ornate rather than precise. No sibling tool overlaps with it, so no differentiation is required.

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?

It gives implicit usage guidance by scoping the tool to 'dilema teknis rumit' (complex technical dilemmas) solved step by step, which tells an agent roughly when to reach for it. It never says when NOT to use it, nor does it contrast it with simply reasoning inline, and there are no explicit preconditions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the default operation pulls from ALDY711/apk-reverse-modifikasi and updates the library, but it does not explain whether local changes are overwritten or merged, which branch or ref is used, authentication or network requirements, or partial-failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence compactly states the action, resource, source, and default repository. There is no filler or structural clutter, and the repeated default remains directly useful for invocation.

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?

Basic invocation is clear for a tool with one optional, fully documented parameter. However, without annotations or an output schema, a mutating network synchronization tool needs more detail about overwrite or merge behavior, source selection and authentication, and success or failure outcomes to support fully reliable use.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the repo field already documents its URL-or-slug format and default value. The description repeats the default repository but adds no further parameter semantics, so the schema appropriately does most of the work.

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 specific verbs (“Sinkronisasi dan perbarui”) and identifies both the resource (“pustaka skills”) and the GitHub source, including a concrete default repository. Its action is implicitly distinct from the list, search, and guide siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 wording implies that the tool should be used when the skills library needs to be refreshed from GitHub. It provides no explicit prerequisites, when-not guidance, or direction to inspection siblings such as list_antigravity_skills or search_skills when synchronization is unnecessary.

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