list_generated_apks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool lists APKs (a read operation) and includes download ids, which implies a read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. Since it's a listing operation, the lack of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap, but the description is adequate for a simple read 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a helpful pointer to list_bundles. No wasted words, and it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, the key parameter (version_code), and how to obtain it. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating the return format, but since there's no output schema, the description could have mentioned that it returns a list of APKs with download ids, which it does. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context by mentioning 'version code' and referencing list_bundles, but it doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists APKs generated by Google Play from an uploaded bundle for a given version code, and specifies the grouping (by signing key) and types (split, standalone, universal) with download ids. It distinguishes from sibling list_apks by focusing on generated APKs from bundles, and explicitly references list_bundles for finding version codes.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to list generated APKs for a version code, and explicitly directs to list_bundles to find version codes. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_apks, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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