inspect_android_class

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds context beyond that: no source is generated, output is display signatures plus explicit unknown DEX descriptor markers, and overload indices are stable within an artifact and engine session. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false (presumably result retention or session state), which leaves a small gap.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the output and session-consistency notes. No filler, though 'Overload indices remain consistent within the artifact and engine session' is jargon-heavy and could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe returns and it does: display signatures plus explicit unknown DEX descriptors, and no source emission. It does not address output size or truncation for very large classes, nor the retention semantics of analysis_project_id, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds only the 'exact class' matching constraint. It says nothing about how analysis_project_id changes behavior (result retention), so it does not meaningfully exceed the structured baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('Inspect') plus a tightly scoped resource ('one exact Android class's parsed methods, fields and inner classes'). The phrase 'one exact' implicitly separates it from search_android_classes and from inspect_android_method, but neither sibling is named, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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: the word 'exact' signals that a fully qualified class name is required, and 'including synthetic members' hints at a completeness-oriented deep-dive. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of search_android_classes (discovery) or inspect_android_method (drill-down), and no prerequisites such as first importing the artifact.

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