smali_list_classes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the output is class names, but does not disclose whether listing is recursive across subdirectories, what the path format looks like, whether results are paginated/limited, or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentence with the action and the optional filter front-loaded; nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits recursion scope, result format and size, and keyword matching behavior — details an agent needs before invoking it 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 coverage is 50%: smaliDir is documented in the schema, while keyword is not. The description partially compensates by explaining that keyword filters the class list, but it does not specify matching semantics (substring, case sensitivity, regex).

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 states a clear verb+resource: list all class names under the smali directory. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling smali_search, which also deals with class discovery via keywords, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. '可用关键字过滤' hints that keyword is optional, but it does not say when this tool should be chosen over smali_search or smali_read_class.

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