get_inbox_apks

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces 'Only reads' while adding genuine context: newest-first ordering, the meaning of an empty array (nothing dropped OR inbox disabled), and the filename-to-workspace mapping behavior. It does not mention that the call is recorded as a job, but that side effect is disclosed in the parameter schema.

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?

Purpose, ordering, and downstream routing are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent clause carries distinct information (return shape, empty-array meaning, naming rule). The run-on em-dash structure makes it dense to parse, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract itself ({ fileName, path, sizeBytes, detectedAt }, path is absolute) and explains the empty-array case. Combined with the schema's coverage of workspace semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the workspace naming derivation ('MyApp-v2.apk' becomes workspace 'myapp-v2') and instructing the agent to pass that derived name. That materially changes how the single parameter is chosen.

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 ('List the .apk files ... in the server's inbox folder') plus ordering ('newest first'), and clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_files and list_workspaces by scoping to the APK inbox. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream tools that consume the result (decompile_apk, decode_apk, identify_packer, adb_install) and the condition that selects this tool: needing a real apkPath 'without the user typing or pasting a path'. This is direct when-to-use routing to alternatives.

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