apk_manifest_analyzer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read/parse and what categories of data are surfaced, including security-relevant flags (exported, debuggable, allowBackup), but says nothing about failure modes (malformed/binary-encoded manifest), performance, or the shape of the result.

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 core action, then the payload enumeration. No filler and no repetition of structured fields.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough to know what it does and roughly what comes back. Missing: the result format (JSON tree vs. summarized report) and handling of edge cases, which would matter when the agent decides whether to call it or a sibling scanner.

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?

Only one parameter (apk_path) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'Absolute path to the APK file to analyze'. The description adds no further constraint or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 (parses) and a specific resource (AndroidManifest.xml inside an APK), then enumerates the extracted elements: package info, activities, services, receivers, intent filters, and security flags. The Android/APK scope makes it distinguishable from ios_manifest_analyzer and apk_permissions_checker, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 can infer this is the tool for static manifest inspection of an APK. There is no statement of when to prefer it over apk_permissions_checker or android_secrets_scanner, and no prerequisites (e.g. the APK must exist on disk, must be unzipped/parsed).

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