export_apks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: that ALL splits are captured (not just the base) and that output lands on the host rather than the device. It omits whether root is required, whether existing files are overwritten, and what happens if the package is not installed.

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 sentence with the action, the resource (including the ALL-splits detail), the destination, and the intended use case — no filler and nothing buried.

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 no explanation, and the tool is simple at two required parameters. Still, for an operation that may require root or elevated privileges and writes files, the absence of any permission, failure, or overwrite note leaves real gaps.

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 0% and both parameters are bare titles, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'an installed app's' clarifies that 'package' is the installed app identifier, and 'host directory' clarifies that 'output_dir' is a path on the host machine. It adds no format examples or path conventions.

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 gives a specific verb ('Export') plus a precise resource ('an installed app's base APK and ALL split APKs') and destination ('host directory'). No sibling tool in the list covers APK extraction, so disambiguation is achieved implicitly, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'for development/testing' signals the intended context, which is a genuine usage hint. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as app_data_archive, deploy_and_verify_apk, or file_transfer_root, and no prerequisites (root, device connection state) are stated.

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