as_apk_info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds context: it uses aapt2 badging as the primary method and falls back to apkanalyzer, which informs reliability and behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise with a front-loaded summary of purpose, followed by technical method and structured Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It could mention error handling for invalid APKs, but overall is sufficient for a straightforward read tool.

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% per context, but the schema itself includes a description for apk_path. The tool description merely mentions 'apk_path' without additional details. It lists return fields but does not compensate for limited parameter documentation.

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 it summarizes an APK and lists key output fields (package, version, SDK levels, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like as_apk_compare or as_apk_filesize by focusing on manifest metadata extraction.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like as_apk_compare or as_apk_verify_signature. It implies usage for general APK info extraction but lacks exclusions or guidance on when not to use.

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