recompile_align_and_sign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals several key traits: the tools used (apktool, zipalign, apksigner), signing schemes (V1/V2/V3), and the keystore fallback behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the workspace is modified in place, if existing output files are overwritten, or what failure modes might occur (e.g., signature verification failure).

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core actions, then provides the keystore condition, and finishes with the return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is optimal for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's behavior.

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 multi-step tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow (repack, align, sign), the signing scheme details, keystore behavior, and the return value. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., that the workspace must be decompiled and modified first) and error handling details, but the sibling tools and the description's own wording imply the pipeline context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to keystoreConfig by explaining it overrides the auto-generated debug keystore, but it does not explicitly explain workspaceDir or outputApkPath. While these names are relatively self-explanatory, the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for the nested keystoreConfig properties.

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 function with specific verbs and resources: 'Repack the decompiled APK workspace with apktool, run zipalign for 4-byte alignment, and sign with apksigner using V1/V2/V3 schemes.' It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like decompile_apk and inject_flutter_runtime_and_smali by focusing on the final build pipeline.

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 usage context by saying 'Repack the decompiled APK workspace', suggesting this is the step after modifications. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The instruction to use an auto-generated debug keystore unless a custom keystoreConfig is provided gives a condition-based usage hint.

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