Inject Flutter runtime into APK workspace

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specific details about what gets mutated: 'mutates workspaceDir by adding libraries, assets, and Smali files.' It also warns about uncertainty and experimental modes ('treat view_tree_injection as experimental because it requires a lifecycle-compatible host'). No contradiction with annotations, though it doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, which would have pushed it higher.

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, each earning its place: first states the main action and prerequisites, second states the safety/mutation detail, third provides mode selection guidance. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler, and structured to be read quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, output schema, destructive behavior), the description provides all necessary context: prerequisites, mutation warning, mode selection rules, and experimental caveats. The output schema handles return values, so no need to repeat that. It fully complements the annotations and schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema already explains; it does incorporate some mode-specific rationale (e.g., 'activity_overlay' for supported cached-engine path), but that's more usage guidance than parameter semantics. The schema already documents each parameter comprehensively.

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 'Inject' and clearly identifies the resource ('synthesized Flutter payload and generated Smali bootstrap') and target ('decoded APK workspace'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like decompile_apk and synthesize_flutter_payload by stating it runs after those steps and mutates the workspace.

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?

Explicit sequencing is provided: 'after decompile_apk and synthesize_flutter_payload have completed' and 'run analyze_injection_surface first when the host lifecycle or ABI compatibility is uncertain.' It also gives mode-selection guidance, such as 'Choose activity_overlay for the supported cached-engine screen path' and 'use direct_application_hook only for a resolvable host Application,' clearly telling when to prefer one mode over another.

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