install_apk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does important work: it warns that 'the user taps Install/Update themselves,' so the agent understands this is an installer-launch, not an automated install. It doesn't cover permission requirements, error behavior, or what open_url/tap could do instead.

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 compact sentences front-load the action and follow with input formats and the required follow-up. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every clause adds actionable information.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: accepted path forms, the fact that the user completes the install, and the next tool to call. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and permissions.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's path description already covers both Linux paths and localhost URLs. The description adds concrete example paths (e.g. /root/.buddy/work/myapp/build/app.apk, Termux port) which give useful flavor but no additional constraint semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Open Android's installer for an APK built in Buddy's Linux' or served locally. This clearly separates it from siblings like open_app or open_url by tying it to the APK install flow.

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?

Explains the two supported input situations (a built path or a localhost URL) and explicitly directs the agent to call wait_for_install next. It doesn't spell out when-not-to-use or failure cases, keeping it at a clear but not exhaustive 4.

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