Inspect Android app

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lower burden. The description adds 'Read' confirming idempotent behavior, but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., app not found) or whether the tool is safe to call repeatedly. It provides no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations offer.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Read...'). It is efficient with no wasted words, but it lacks any additional structure or detail that could improve usability without adding length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description omits important context such as the fact that this tool targets Android apps (evident only from title), the requirement that the app must be installed, or any error conditions. For a tool with few parameters and good annotations, it is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 50% (serial has a description, packageName does not). The tool description says 'Read package state...' which vaguely relates to packageName but does not clarify its meaning or pattern. It adds no new semantics beyond parameter names. Baseline is 3 due to moderate coverage and no param-specific elaboration.

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 explicitly states 'Read package state, permissions, components, users, and installation metadata', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like mobile_app_launch (launch) and mobile_app_install (install), which are write operations, and from other read tools like mobile_device_inspect which inspect the device rather than a specific app.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context such as prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over mobile_device_inspect or mobile_server_info. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation is mentioned.

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