analyze_injection_surface

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

The verb 'Scan' clearly implies a read-only analysis operation, and the description enumerates exactly what is inspected and the output (recommended Smali patch points). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden and does so well, though it does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything'.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and uses a colon to list specific analysis targets. Every phrase contributes value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a comprehensive list of what is analyzed and what is produced ('recommended Smali patch points'). It is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it, though it does not describe the return format or whether files are written.

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?

The only parameter workspaceDir receives meaningful context: it must be a 'decompiled APK workspace', which clarifies the expected value beyond the raw schema's minLength=1. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by making the parameter's semantics clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('decompiled APK workspace') and clearly states the tool's goal: identify optimal injection hooks for Flutter runtime initialization. It lists concrete outputs (Application class presence, entry Activity, JNI loading sites, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like decompile_apk or inject_flutter_runtime_and_smali.

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 clearly implies the tool is for use on a decompiled APK workspace, indicating it should be run after decompile_apk and before injection steps. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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