inspect_apktool_client

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety surface is partly covered, yet the description still adds meaningful behavior: it decodes nothing and never installs Apktool or Java, and it names the exact env/PATH resolution order. Minor gap: it does not say what happens when no launcher resolves.

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 short sentences, capability stated first, the negative constraint second, the environment prerequisite last. No restated title, no filler, nothing to trim.

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 naming the three things returned (resolved command, selection source, version). All parameters are optional and documented in schema, so remaining gaps — failure behavior when no launcher exists, and the meaning of the readOnlyHint=false annotation on an inspection tool — are comparatively minor.

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 optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that analysis_project_id merely retains the result in an investigation. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable at full schema coverage but is the 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Inspect the caller-selected apktool launcher") and enumerates the return content: resolved command, selection source, version. The clause "Decodes nothing" separates it from the decode/inspect_android_package siblings that actually process binaries, 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?

The description explains the selection mechanism (REA_APKTOOL_COMMAND absolute path or apktool on PATH), which implies the tool is a pre-flight check before decoding work, but never states "use this when X" or names an alternative such as decode_android_resources for actual decoding. Usage is inferable, not instructed.

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