android_google_services

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the extraction sequence, including google-services.json parsing and resource.arsc scanning with the strings command, but it omits whether the tool only reads, whether it writes any files, how missing files are handled, and what the overall return format is.

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?

Three compact sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose and then detail the extraction modes. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 be richer about return values and failure behavior. It explains the input modes and one structured output case, but not the full output shape or what happens when google-services.json is absent.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral effect of smali_folder: it causes direct parsing of res/values/strings.xml for structured key=value output.

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: extracts Google and Firebase configuration from an APK. It also names the exact artifacts it examines, which distinguishes it from iOS siblings and from broader Android secret scanners.

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 implied by the tool name and the APK-specific scope, and the optional smali_folder condition is given. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of android_secrets_scanner, android_api_extractor, or apk_manifest_analyzer, nor does it state exclusions.

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