static_unpack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the real behavioral trait that hardened APKs produce only shell dex — valuable domain context — but says nothing about where output lands, permissions, or whether anything is modified.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences that each add information: what it does, how to invoke it, and the hardened-APK caveat. No padding.

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?

Covers purpose and one important caveat, which is the minimum viable for this tool. But with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the missing explanation of outDir/serial and of where extracted dex files go leaves real gaps.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description only explains apkPath and pkg (including that they are alternatives). outDir and serial are undocumented in both schema and description, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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 and resource: static unpacking, decompressing an APK to extract all classes*.dex files. The word 'static' implicitly separates it from the dynamic sibling frida_unpack, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Says apkPath or pkg can be supplied (pkg triggers auto-pull), which is useful selection context. The note that hardened APKs only yield shell dex implicitly steers the agent toward a dynamic unpacker, but no alternative tool is named, so the routing is left to inference.

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