Identify if an Android APK is hardened and determine the packer vendor (e.g., 360, Tencent, Bangbang, Ijiami) from a local path or device package name.
识别 APK 是否被加固及加固厂商（360/腾讯/梆梆/爱加密等）。可传本地 apkPath，或传 pkg 自动从设备拉取后检测。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pkg | No | 设备上应用包名（将先拉取 APK） | |
| serial | No | ||
| apkPath | No | 本地 APK 路径 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the side effect that passing pkg triggers an automatic APK pull from the device, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. But it omits safety profile (read-only?), device state requirements, and expected output/confidence, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation 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?
Two tightly packed sentences with zero waste: purpose and vendors front-loaded, then the input modes. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what a result looks like (detected vendor, confidence, unpacked/not) and what 'serial' does. It covers the input story well but leaves the return and device-targeting aspects thin.
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 67%; the description clarifies the pkg-vs-apkPath distinction (pkg pulls first, apkPath is local), reinforcing the schema. It adds no meaning for the undocumented 'serial' parameter, which is unexplained in both schema and description.
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: identifies whether an APK is packed/hardened and names the packer vendor (360/Tencent/Bangbang/爱加密). An agent can tell this is a detection tool, not an unpacking tool like static_unpack, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
Explains the two invocation modes (local apkPath vs pkg that auto-pulls from device), which is genuine usage guidance. However it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., pull_apk then this, or static_unpack) and no prerequisites such as needing a connected device.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.