Inspect Android app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's enumeration of what it reads adds some scope context, but an output schema exists that would reveal the returned fields, so the marginal disclosure is modest. No auth requirements, device-precondition, or cost details are added.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the enumeration follows. Every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and complete safety annotations, the description covers purpose and content adequately. Its main residual gap is the absence of routing guidance among the large set of mobile_app_* siblings and the undocumented packageName parameter.

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 50%: serial carries a strong schema description (pointing to mobile_devices_list and the multi-device inference rule), but packageName documents only a regex pattern with no explanation. The description itself says nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the documented half-gap. 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (package), and enumerates scope: state, permissions, components, users, installation metadata. This clearly separates it from the many sibling action tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling mobile_device_inspect, but the 'package' framing implies app-level vs device-level, so it stops just short of the 5 bar.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The description never tells the agent to prefer this over mobile_device_inspect or when inspecting an app is the right step. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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