asc_get_class_source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a bounded page (suggesting pagination) and that decompilation is a read-like operation, but it does not mention side effects, performance implications (e.g., the threads parameter), error behavior, or whether the APK is modified. This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no fluff. Every word adds value: 'locate and decompile', 'one class', 'bounded page'. This is a model of concise, structured writing.

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 five parameters, two required, with zero schema descriptions and no annotations. A single-sentence description is not enough to cover parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, or error cases. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 for all five parameters. It only hints at class_name ('one class') and limit/offset ('bounded page'), but omits apk_path and threads entirely. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to set each parameter correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('decompile') and resource ('one class') and clarifies the output ('bounded page of source lines'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like asc_list_classes (lists classes) and asc_find_refs (finds references) without needing to open 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?

The description provides a clear context: use this when you need the decompiled source of a single class. It implies contrast with list/find tools but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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