apk_teardown_diff

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 this is a comparison operation that returns a diff across specific dimensions and only works on already-completed jobs, implying a non-destructive read. It does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or return structure, but the core behavior is reasonably 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action, prerequisite, and output scope are all front-loaded, and every phrase contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 two-parameter diff tool, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly: completed-job IDs are the inputs, the typical use case is stated, and the categories of the returned diff are listed. The lack of an output schema or exact return field names is a minor gap, but not blocking for correct invocation.

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 useful constraints by framing both parameters as IDs of completed jobs and suggests the usual version-to-version pairing. It does not clarify ordering semantics between job_id_a and job_id_b, but the schema already names the parameters adequately.

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 concrete verb-resource pair ('Diff two completed apk-teardown jobs') and immediately clarifies scope: it compares completed jobs, typically two versions of the same app, and returns changed categories such as permissions, signing, SDKs, and size. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apk_teardown_submit and apk_teardown_timeline, though it does not explicitly name the ownership-focused sibling apk_teardown_compare_ownership.

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 gives clear usage context: the tool is for comparing two already-completed jobs, not for creating or continuing jobs. It also suggests the typical scenario of comparing two app versions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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