identify_packer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that it relies on APKiD and requires apkid on PATH, and 'Fingerprint' implies read-only analysis. However, it does not state what the tool returns, whether any workspace/side effects occur, or what happens when apkid is missing.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and mechanism, the second states the required dependency. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what kind of result the agent can expect; it only says 'Fingerprint...' without describing the return shape. Parameters are well covered by the schema, and the dependency is noted, but the missing output/side-effect context leaves a moderate gap.

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. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the APK focus, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Fingerprint' and names the exact resource: compiler, packer, obfuscator, and anti-debug/anti-VM techniques in an APK. It also names the mechanism (APKiD's YARA rules), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like decompile_apk, build_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?

The description clearly implies when to use this tool: when an agent needs to identify packing/obfuscation/anti-analysis techniques in an APK. It also provides a concrete prerequisite (apkid on PATH), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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