Build, align, and sign APK output

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context: it 'overwrites outputApkPath and creates signing artifacts,' explains the difference between debug-signed and release artifacts, and mentions signature verification. This goes beyond mere annotation replication, though it doesn't detail every side effect.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence establishes the core action, the second covers usage and destruction, and the third clarifies the keystore nuance. No filler or redundant repetition of schema content; every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (build, align, sign, verify), and with an output schema present, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: the workflow, when to use it, destructive side effects, and the signing artifact distinction. It is complete and self-sufficient.

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 adds meaningful semantics for keystoreConfig by explaining that custom keystores are for 'authorized signing workflow' and that omitting it results in a 'debug-signed test artifact,' which the schema alone does not convey.

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 clearly states the tool's specific function: 'Build a modified decoded workspace with apktool, align the APK, sign it with apksigner, and verify the resulting signature.' It names the exact resources and actions, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as 'the final packaging step after manifest and Smali validation.'

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('final packaging step after manifest and Smali validation') and when not to ('do not call it for read-only inspection'). It also differentiates authorized vs. unauthorized signing workflows with the keystore caveat, providing clear situational guidance.

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