analyze_apk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that jadx is invoked, that the app's own package is prioritized, that third-party libraries are skipped, that lists are capped at 50 per kind with totals and a warning file listing everything, and that nothing is downloaded. Those are exactly the operational traits an agent needs that a one-param schema cannot convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first two lines and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (output lists, caps, framework caveats, no-download guarantee). The dense lowercase run-on listing of candidate kinds costs some readability, but little is wasted.

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 the description needn't define return values, yet it still explains the shape of gatt_uuids, candidates, totals and warnings. For a heavyweight static-analysis run, the only notable omission is any hint of runtime cost or failure modes when jadx cannot process a file.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it defines the accepted file types (.apk, .xapk, .apks), that the file must exist locally, and that output lands under jadx_dir. It never explicitly says the lone `path` parameter is that file's location, but the mapping is easy to infer.

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 ('statically analyze a vendor android app (.apk, .xapk or .apks) already on disk') and then enumerates the concrete outputs: framework detection, gatt_uuids, and file:line candidates. This clearly separates it from runtime siblings like scan, connect, or open_capture.

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 phrase 'already on disk' plus 'harald never downloads apps' sets a clear precondition, and the note that Flutter/React-Native apps keep BLE code compiled 'so the warnings point to capture analysis instead' redirects the agent to a sibling approach. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for other cases, but the context is unambiguous.

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