decompile_apk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main actions, output artifacts, and the return value format (manifest summary fields). It does not state whether the original APK is modified or mention prerequisites like apktool availability, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds meaningful detail. No filler 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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a solid overview of outputs and return value but leaves gaps around parameter semantics and invocation prerequisites. It is adequate but not fully complete for autonomous use.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (apkPath, outputDir, decompileSources). The description mentions outputs but does not clarify how parameters control the decompilation behavior, especially the boolean decompileSources flag.

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 ('Disassemble') with a clear resource ('target Android APK') and enumerates concrete outputs (Smali bytecode, lib/, res/, decoded AndroidManifest.xml) and the tool used (apktool). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recompile_align_and_sign or analyze_injection_surface.

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 implies this is the decompilation step in a pipeline (evidenced by sibling tool names) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not directly stated.

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