asc_apk_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is read-only in nature ('Inspect') and lists what it returns, but it doesn't mention whether the APK is parsed locally, whether the SHA-256 computation is expensive, or any failure modes. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the key outputs. No wasted words, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the main purpose and key outputs, but with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent might not know when to prefer this over asc_get_manifest or asc_list_classes. It's adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'size, SHA-256, manifest presence, and top-level DEX entries' which maps to the output, but it doesn't explain the 'apk_path' format or the 'include_sha256' flag's effect beyond what the schema's default suggests. The description adds some meaning but leaves parameter semantics mostly to the schema.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('APK'), and lists concrete attributes: size, SHA-256, manifest presence, and top-level DEX entries. This distinguishes it from siblings like asc_get_manifest and asc_list_classes, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is the tool for inspecting APK-level metadata, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for manifest details or class listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus asc_get_manifest or asc_list_classes, leaving some inference to the agent.

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