apk_teardown_timeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose non-trivial behavioral traits: inputs must be completed jobs, the caller must assert they are versions of the same app, and the output is ordered by version code with consecutive pairwise diffs. However, it says nothing about error conditions, side effects, permissions, or the prerequisite that jobs come from apk_teardown_submit.

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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Build a version timeline'), followed by the diff output semantics. Every sentence adds information with no filler or repetition of the input schema.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic invocation: it states the input requirement and the shape of the output (pairwise diffs sorted by version). It falls short on providing a concrete return format and fails to mention the dependency on prior apk-teardown jobs (apk_teardown_submit) for completing the operation.

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%, with the schema already documenting job_ids as a comma-separated list of 2+ job ids in any order. The description adds meaning beyond this by stating the ids must refer to completed jobs and that the caller asserts they are versions of the same app, which shapes how the agent should pick inputs.

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 and resource: 'Build a version timeline across 2+ apk-teardown jobs.' It also differentiates itself from siblings like apk_teardown_diff by specifying 'consecutive pairwise diff for each version transition' and 'sorted by version code.' An agent can separate this timeline tool from comparison and diff tools without opening schemas.

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 context: use when you have 2+ completed job ids that the caller asserts are the same app's versions, and want a timeline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as apk_teardown_diff or apk_teardown_compare_ownership, nor say when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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