Get Expansion File

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies that the tool returns information rather than the file itself, which is useful, and adds context about the 100MB APK limit. However, it does not mention side-effect-free behavior, prerequisites, or relationship to upload/patch operations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful domain context about expansion files without introducing redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, fully documented parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a read/info tool. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit routing between this and the expansion-file upload/update sibling tools.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'APK expansion file information', which is specific and distinct from write-oriented sibling tools like upload_expansion_file and patch_expansion_file. However, the differentiation is implicit rather than explicitly naming alternatives.

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 provides background on expansion files but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, and does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools. An agent must infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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