asc_get_manifest

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 operation is non-destructive (decode) and that output is paginated (bounded page). However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or the meaning of the pagination parameters, which are needed for safe invocation.

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 with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and it communicates the essential behavior and output format efficiently.

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 is relatively simple with an output schema that presumably covers return value structure. The description covers the core behavior but leaves pagination semantics and failure modes unaddressed. Given the 0% schema description coverage, more context about offset/limit would be helpful.

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 parameter documentation. It does not explain apk_path, limit, or offset explicitly; the phrase 'bounded page' only hints at pagination. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no semantic value beyond 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 names a specific resource (AndroidManifest.xml), a specific action (Decode), and the output shape (a bounded page of XML lines). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like asc_list_classes or asc_find_refs, which target different artifacts.

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 usage: call this when you need the manifest content as XML. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like asc_apk_info or asc_list_classes, leaving the choice to inference.

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