appknox_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important behavior (host-path requirement and sandbox path failure) and specifies the return value (file ID). It does not detail authentication, error handling, or size limits, but the most critical behavioral gotchas are covered.

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, followed by an important warning. It is a bit repetitive with the schema's parameter description, but every sentence serves a purpose and the formatting is clear.

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 simple one-parameter upload tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what input is expected (with a critical constraint), and what it returns (file ID). No output schema exists, so the explicit return value statement is valuable and sufficient.

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 schema already fully documents file_path, including the absolute path requirement and sandbox path warning. The description adds a Windows example and reiterates the same constraint, providing marginal additional value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Upload a mobile application package'), the resource (APK/IPA), and the purpose (security scanning), while noting the return value (file ID). This differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are primarily read/query operations.

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?

It is implicit that this tool is used when uploading a file for scanning, and the context of the sibling tools (mostly retrieval) makes it the sole upload action. The description provides a crucial usage constraint: the file_path must be a host path, not a sandbox path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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