get_app_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral properties fully. It mentions the underlying commands (dumpsys package + resolve-activity), which is helpful for understanding scope and side effects. However, it does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits.

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 a single sentence with minimal words, front-loads the key output, and appends the implementation hint in parentheses. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the agent needs: what it reports and how it works. Still, without output schema, a brief note on return format would improve completeness.

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%—both parameters (serial, package) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds context about what the tool reports (version name/code, launchable activity) but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Since coverage is complete, the baseline is 3; the slight additional context justifies a 4.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair: 'Report an installed app's version name/code and its launchable activity'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_packages (which lists packages) and launch_app (which launches), providing a clear, unique purpose.

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 context—confirming what build is installed and finding the launch activity—but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_packages, launch_app, or stop_app. It gives no guidance on when not to use it.

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