analyze_apk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses READ-ONLY, no execution of APK contents, no network, and that sandbox=True runs inside a bwrap chamber by default. It stops short of describing output shape or any resource/rate considerations, but the critical safety profile is fully covered.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the tool's identity and pipeline come first, then per-parameter notes, then the safety guarantees. No sentence is padding, and the telegraphic style keeps the whole definition compact.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers behavior, parameters, and scope. The one real gap is disambiguation from the closely related sibling tools (analyze_binary, sandbox_analyze_binary), which an agent would have to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'arch' is documented as optional with an example value and an 'else all' default, and 'sandbox' is explained as default-True with its execution semantics. Only 'path' is left undocumented, but its meaning is self-evident from the required field name.

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?

States a specific verb+resource chain: extracts native libs (lib/*/*.so) and runs each through re_triage.py (Ghidra -> capa/floss -> sink rank), explicitly scoping to the native layer jadx/apktool miss. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never differentiates itself from actual siblings like analyze_binary or sandbox_analyze_binary.

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 closing line 'Eigene / in-scope APKs' implies an authorization scope, and the native-layer framing hints at when this tool applies versus static APK unpackers. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over analyze_binary or sandbox_analyze_binary, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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