sign_apk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files), output location, error handling, or prerequisites beyond defaults. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the purpose and key usage guidance efficiently.

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 low complexity (6 simple parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but lacks details on output (e.g., signed APK path) and behavioral traits. It meets basic needs but could be more complete for a signing operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that apkPath is required and other parameters have defaults. It does not provide syntax, format, or additional context not in the schema.

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 'Sign an APK file using Uber APK Signer', specifying the action (sign), resource (APK file), and tool (Uber APK Signer). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_keystore and verify_apk_signature.

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 explains that only apkPath is required and other parameters can use defaults or be configured, providing clear guidance on minimal usage and flexibility. It implies usage when signing an APK, but does not explicitly state 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.