get_sdk_declarations

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already supplied, the bar is lowered, and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the operation is filesystem-local rather than device-mediated, and it requires a shared filesystem precondition. It does not describe failure behavior when files are absent, but for a read-only locator with an output schema this is acceptable. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 two sentences of minimal, information-dense text with no fluff or restating of the schema. The core purpose leads, and the environmental prerequisite is delivered in the second sentence. 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?

For a one-parameter tool that ships both annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is being located, for what purpose (to-script), and the environment constraint. It does not mention what happens when declarations are not found or how results are expressed, but the output schema presumably carries the return shape, so the remaining gap is small.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at the platform's role via the noun phrase 'platform bridge'. It never explicitly says the platform enum (android/ios) selects which platform's SDK and declaration files to locate. The enum values are fairly self-evident and the parameter is single and required, so the deficit is minor, giving partial compensation rather than none.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Locate local SDK, platform bridge, and Frida Gum declaration files for to-script.' It clearly differentiates from the siblings (connect, call_function, disconnect, eval_script), which act over a device connection or execute scripts, while this tool only locates declaration files locally. The intended output artifact is concrete and the scope is unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Requires a shared filesystem, not a device connection' gives an explicit applicability condition and an exclusion: use this when the declarations live on a shared filesystem, do not use it as part of a device-connection flow, which implicitly steers the agent away from the connect/disconnect siblings. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly or state a 'when not to use' beyond the connection caveat, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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