guidance

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 structurally. The description does add two useful behavioral facts beyond that: reads are paged, and commands contained in the documents are not auto-executed. It says nothing about return shape, whether reads are truncated, or error behavior, so the addition is modest.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scoping constraint (paged, read-only, no command execution) packed in, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the parameter detail noted above rather than through disciplined pruning alone.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, two enums, no output schema and no sibling handoff, this is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what 'name' selects against, whether 'path' is relative to a skill root, or how limit/offset interact with truncation.

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 full burden for 5 parameters. It hints at pagination (limit/offset) and at list-vs-read (action), but never explains the 'name' enum values (apk-reverse, mobile-reverse, ida-reverse, protocol-reverse) or the name-vs-path distinction, leaving the highest-risk parameters undocumented in both places.

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 specific verbs (list/read), the resource (local Android reverse-engineering Skill/reference docs), and its pagination scope, so it is not a tautology of the name 'guidance'. It stops short of naming a sibling to contrast with (e.g. search), so the boundary is only implied, not drawn.

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 '按需' (on demand) and 'list or read' implies usage, and the note about not executing embedded commands warns about a limitation. However, it never states when to choose this over lookalike siblings such as search, nor when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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