analyze_artifact

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

With no annotations to convey safety or side effects, the description must carry the burden, but it only states 'static apk-docforge analysis' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, touches external services, or has side effects. The static qualifier conflicts with the schema's dynamic mode, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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, brief sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the core action. It could be improved by removing 'static' to avoid redundancy with the schema's mode parameter, but it remains concise overall.

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 four parameters, including an enum for mode and no output schema, the description fails to mention the dynamic mode, output options, or device handling. It provides minimal context for a tool of this complexity, leaving the agent without critical usage details.

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 explain parameters, but it only hints that 'path' points to local files via 'local APK/APKS/XAPK'. It provides no context for 'out', 'mode', or 'device', and the mention of 'static' diverges from the schema's mode enum, failing to clarify rather than helping.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('static apk-docforge analysis') and enumerates artifact types (APK/APKS/XAPK), which helps distinguish it from broader siblings like search_apps or get_report. However, the term 'static' is potentially misleading since the schema allows a 'dynamic' mode, slightly obscuring the full scope.

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 phrase 'for a local APK/APKS/XAPK artifact' implies this tool targets local files, suggesting a use case versus cloud-based alternatives (e.g., download_app). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of siblings like get_analysis or list_findings, nor any exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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