apk_orchestrate

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 tool runs a multi-agent pipeline and writes REPORT.md, which is useful, but it omits side effects, whether it is long-running or asynchronous, whether existing files are overwritten, and what the output schema represents.

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 or redundant words. The action, scope, and deliverable are front-loaded, making it easy to read and remember.

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 complex orchestration tool with four parameters, zero parameter documentation, and no behavioral notes, the description is too thin. Even though an output schema exists, the agent cannot know the meaning of 'agents'/'extras'/'case_dir' or important operational details needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description explains none of the four parameters: apk_path, agents, extras, and case_dir. The agent is left without any meaning for the optional parameters or how they affect orchestration.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Run the full 7-agent Android reverse pipeline and write REPORT.md.' The reference to 'full 7-agent' distinguishes this aggregate orchestration from the more granular sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus apk_dispatch, apk_report, or other siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions; only the phrase 'full 7-agent pipeline' implies the intended scope.

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