inspect_android_package

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: caller must supply a JADX MCP JAR and a JDK, processing runs with one worker in an isolated temporary workspace, and the target is never executed. These are real operational constraints (prerequisites, concurrency, sandboxing) that annotations like readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true do not convey. It could still say more about output volume or failure modes for large APKs.

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: purpose and outputs first, then exclusions, then prerequisites. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned artifacts (manifest contents, permission set, class/resource counts), which is what an agent needs to plan a call. It does not mention rough runtime cost or behavior on malformed/obfuscated APKs, leaving a small gap for a tool that shells out to JADX.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the regex for analysis_project_id and the 'never executed' note on path. The description reinforces 'local APK' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (inspect) and resource (local APK) and enumerates exactly what is extracted: package, SDK, permission declarations, decoded manifest, class/resource counts. The word 'local' plus the explicit non-goals ('does not execute the APK or verify signatures') separates it from device-side siblings like inspect_adb_package and from decode_android_resources.

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 establishes the context of use (a local APK on disk) and rules out two plausible but wrong expectations: execution and signature verification. It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling or stating a when-not-to-use condition beyond those exclusions, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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