upload_apk

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the upload overwrites existing files, requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. The naming convention is mentioned, but that is about parameter structure, not behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences, both essential. The first sentence states the purpose and naming convention, and the second provides usage preference. No filler words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important context such as return value, error handling, overwrite behavior, or prerequisites. While the purpose is clear, the completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the naming convention, but the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., 'Absolute path to the APK', 'Project alias', etc.). The description does not provide additional semantic depth beyond what the schema offers.

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 the action ('Upload'), the resource ('Android APK to R2'), and the naming convention ('{project}/{version}/{filename}'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_file by specifying 'Prefer this tool for APK releases', indicating specialization.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this tool for APK releases (vitalo, linkbox, nestle, diageo, contador, …)', providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's slightly below the top score.

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