Get Manifest Component

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the data source (AndroidManifest.xml) and the supported component types, and the presence of an output schema offloads return-format disclosure. It says nothing about behavior for an unrecognized component_type, case sensitivity, or whether all matching components of a type are returned.

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?

Two compact sentences with the resource and data source front-loaded, then the supported values. Minor grammatical awkwardness ('support filter exported components'), but no filler.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the essentials are covered, but the definition leaves an agent unable to distinguish this from get_android_manifest in edge cases and silent on invalid component_type handling. Adequate but with clear gaps at the sibling boundary.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'activity, provider, service, receiver' effectively supplies the missing enum for component_type, and 'filter exported components' explains only_exported. It does not state defaults or whether only_exported is ignored for non-filterable types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve component data from AndroidManifest.xml, and enumerates the component types it covers (activity, provider, service, receiver). It stops short of naming the sibling get_android_manifest, so the boundary between 'whole manifest' and 'one component type' must be inferred.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says it can 'filter exported components', which hints at when only_exported matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_android_manifest for whole-manifest reads. An agent must guess which of the two manifest tools to call.

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