Get Package Tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape and ordering ('sorted by class count') and implies a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Shows', but it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, side effects, or prerequisites such as requiring a loaded APK.

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 three short sentences and front-loads what the tool returns. The middle sentence listing output fields is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but it remains compact and readable.

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 zero-parameter schema, absence of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying prerequisites or read-only behavior, but no essential invocation detail is missing.

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?

The tool has zero input parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not spend space explaining nonexistent parameters.

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 — 'Get all packages in the APK' — and adds scope details like sorting by class count and per-package output fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_all_classes or get_main_application_classes_names, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 final sentence gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to understand the APK structure before searching.' That establishes when to use this tool relative to search-oriented siblings, though it does not name a specific alternative 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.