validate_android_split_package

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

The description only states it performs validation, which is a read operation, but lacks details on side effects (should be none), authorization needs, or error behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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?

The description is very concise (one sentence) but at the expense of clarity. It lacks structure like sections or bullet points, and while front-loaded, it is too sparse to be fully helpful.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what validation entails (e.g., checks performed, expected naming conventions). It is incomplete for a validation tool, leaving ambiguity about input requirements and output format.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'folder' and 'expected OBB filename/layout' but does not clarify that 'local_dir' is the folder path and 'apk_name' is the optional APK filename. It adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states it validates a Steam Frame Unity APK+OBB folder and expected OBB filename/layout. It uses a specific verb 'validate' and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_install_apk or inspect_android_apk.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_android_apk or stage_android_obb_layout. It doesn't specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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