as_apk_verify_signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, effectively describing it as a safe read operation. The description adds the return format (JSON with verified bool and cert details) but does not comment on permissions or limitations like network access or file existence.

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: two lines for purpose, one line for args, one line for return. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every sentence is necessary.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema provided (but context indicates it exists), the description adequately covers the return format and purpose. It could mention that it uses apksigner or that the APK must exist locally, but overall it is 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?

The description merely restates the parameter name apk_path, which is already documented in the input schema with a description. Since schema_description_coverage is 0% per context (though actual schema has a description), the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies an APK's signature and prints signing certificates. The verb 'verify' and resource 'APK signature' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like as_apk_info or as_apk_filesize.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, contraindications, or scenarios where other tools would be preferred. Agents have to infer usage from context.

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