identify_packer

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's 'Only reads the file' is redundant. It adds real value beyond the annotations: the external dependency (apkid on PATH, pip install), the per-file scan scope, and the graceful { raw } fallback when APKiD output is not valid JSON.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the positioning and return/dependency details. Dense but each clause carries information; only the 'Only reads the file' clause partially duplicates the annotations.

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 compensates by describing the return shape (APKiD JSON grouped by category, with { raw } fallback) and the runtime prerequisite (apkid on PATH). For a three-parameter read-only tool this is complete.

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, workspace, and timeoutSeconds fully. The description adds only an implicit note that multiple files may be scanned ('for each scanned file'), which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Fingerprint) and a precise resource (compiler, packer, obfuscator, anti-debug/anti-VM techniques of an APK), names the mechanism (APKiD's YARA rules), and positions it as a first-pass triage step, distinguishing it from siblings like decompile_apk and scan_secrets.

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 frames when to use it: 'a good first look before deciding how to approach an APK.' It gives clear context for use but does not name specific alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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