apk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the async contract: it returns a task handle and the caller must subsequently read result.json, which is genuinely useful behavior not visible in the annotations. It stops there, saying nothing about where result.json lives, how completion is detected, or what the payload shape is.

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?

Two short clauses with no filler, and the output-handling instruction is placed after the operation list where it is most needed. The telegraphic Chinese is dense but readable; nothing is wasted, though slightly more connective phrasing would reduce ambiguity.

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 a two-parameter, closed-world read tool with no output schema, the core is present: what it does and how results are retrieved. However, the 'then read result.json' instruction dangles — no location, no polling/completion signal, no pointer to the jobs sibling — leaving the agent to guess the follow-up workflow.

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 carries the burden. It does give semantic meaning to the three action values (inspect = ZIP/DEX/ABI digest, signature = signature re-verification, manifest = Manifest summary), which is real added value. The required path parameter is never explained — its meaning is only inferable from the word APK — so compensation is partial.

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 names a concrete resource (APK) and three concrete operations — ZIP/DEX/ABI summary, signature re-verification, and Manifest summary — which map cleanly onto the action enum. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as dex, artifact, or resources, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though dex, artifact, resources, and rebuild all plausibly overlap. The only selection hint is the enumeration of the three operations, which duplicates what the action enum already encodes in the schema.

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