as_aab_install

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond the action 'install'. It does not mention requirements like a connected device or potential side effects. The confirm parameter's purpose is covered in the schema but not reinforced in the description. This is adequate but minimal for a simple operation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for the main action, a line for arguments, and a line for return type. All information is front-loaded, and there is no superfluous text. Every part serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one top-level parameter (object) and three sub-parameters, all described in the schema. The description covers the overall purpose and return type. An output schema exists, so return value details are already provided. The description is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention the confirm flag's role (already in 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 reported as 0%, meaning the description must compensate. The description only lists parameter names ('apks_path, serial, confirm') without adding any semantic details beyond the schema. It does not explain their purpose, formatting, or constraints, leaving the agent with only the schema descriptions. Given the low coverage, this is insufficient.

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 purpose: 'Install a .apks set onto a connected device'. It specifies the verb (install), resource (.apks set), and target (connected device). This distinguishes it from siblings like as_adb_install which installs regular APKs, and references the bundletool command, making the action unambiguous.

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 by stating it installs a .apks set, which differentiates it from APK installation tools like as_adb_install. However, it does not explicitly provide 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when the input is an .apks set.

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