decode_apk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the output is rebuildable, that apktool is used, and that apktool must be installed. However, it does not mention side effects such as where files are written, how the workspace is used, or what happens on failure, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and each clause adds useful information: output type, tool, rebuildability, and the PATH prerequisite.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, output format, tool, and prerequisite. It does not, however, explain where decoded artifacts are written, how the workspace parameter factors in, or explicitly distinguish this tool from decompile_apk. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 documents apkPath, noRes, noSrc, and workspace. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the general mention of decoding resources and code, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Decode'), a resource (APK), concrete outputs ('editable XML' and 'smali'), and the engine (apktool). It is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate the sibling decompile_apk; the 'unlike jadx' phrase implies a contrast but leaves the sibling relationship implicit.

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 description gives a concrete comparison ('unlike jadx, the result can be rebuilt') and states a prerequisite ('Requires apktool on PATH'), which helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or naming decompile_apk as the alternative, so it is not a 5.

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