Install App

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes the APK path is a host path (useful), but says nothing about whether an existing install is replaced, that grant_permissions defaults to true, whether this is destructive, or what permissions/auth are needed for a mutating install operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the host-path clarification is placed inline where it matters. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the behavioral and parameter details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% across 4 parameters. The description clarifies only that 'path' refers to a host-side APK; 'device', 'replace', and 'grant_permissions' (and its default of true) are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb (Install) and resource (an APK on the device), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like uninstall_app, launch_app, and start_app. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use install_app versus launch_app/start_app, nor any prerequisite context such as whether the device must be connected or whether the app must be absent first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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