Analyze APK integration surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only and idempotent' is consistent but redundant. However, it adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the operation produces warnings and evidence that should be reviewed, which implies output characteristics not covered by the annotation fields. No contradiction exists.

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 sentences, all substantive: the first states the operation and deliverables, the second covers timing and non-mutability, the third gives actionable guidance. No filler or tautology; front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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?

Given a full output schema, one well-documented parameter, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent/destructive properties, the description sufficiently completes the picture by adding temporal workflow context and next-step actions. It explains the tool's role in the broader pipeline without needing to describe return values.

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 covers the single parameter workspaceDir with a full description, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level detail; it merely references 'decoded APK workspace' which mirrors the schema. Baseline of 3 applies when the schema handles parameter semantics, which it does here.

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 opens with 'Read a decoded APK workspace' providing a specific verb and resource, then enumerates concrete outputs (manifest components, ABI coverage, Flutter conflicts, JNI loading evidence, candidate integration points). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like decompile_apk (which produces the workspace) and inject_flutter_runtime_and_smali (which modifies files).

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'use it after decompile_apk and before choosing an injection mode', and provides negative guidance by saying 'not to modify files'. It also names alternative orchestration steps by referencing inject_flutter_runtime_and_smali and patch_manifest_and_config as subsequent actions after reviewing warnings.

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