inspect_apk

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'bounded', which implies a size or depth limit but never says what is bounded, what gets truncated, or what form the inventory takes, leaving the main behavioral question unanswered.

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?

It is short, but that is not the same as concise: 'Bounded APK inventory, not signature verification' is a noun fragment with no subject or verb, and 'bounded' is unexplained filler. The brevity comes from omitted information, not from efficient wording.

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 an inspection tool with no output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the description should say what the inventory contains and how the path is interpreted. Instead it leaves an agent unable to predict the response shape or the input format.

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?

The single parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, and it says nothing about the parameter. It never states whether path is a local file path, a remote URL, or one of the listed artifacts.

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 fragment 'APK inventory' identifies the resource and a rough intent, but the verb is missing and 'bounded' is never explained. It distinguishes itself from signature verification, but that is not one of the named siblings, and it never contrasts with analyze_apk or review_manifest, which look like the closest alternatives.

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 only selection guidance is a negative: 'not signature verification'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over analyze_apk or review_manifest, and no prerequisites or exclusions an agent could act on.

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