resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by stating the view-events output is candidate-only and does not prove runtime behavior, which prevents an agent from over-trusting results. It says nothing about pagination semantics, limits, or how large scans behave.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the epistemic caveat is placed at the end where it lands as a warning. Density is high enough that some clauses (two capabilities plus a caveat) are compressed almost to the point of 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?

With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and two distinct operating modes, the description covers far too little. It omits return shape, pagination behavior, and any per-mode parameter guidance, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It gestures at pagination (implying limit/offset) but never explains the enum values 'strings' versus 'view-events', what locale does, or what className is used for. The agent is left to infer parameter meaning from names alone.

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 two distinct capabilities: paginating resource strings, and scanning decoded XML or APK for View android:onClick declarations. That is more than a restatement of the name 'resources', but the connection between the tool name and the view-events scanning mode is oblique, and the resource type being paginated (app resources? string table?) is never stated. An agent can guess the purpose but would not be confident about scope.

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 a partial usage caveat: output is 'candidates awaiting DEX verification, not proof of runtime behavior', which tells the agent how to treat results. However, nothing says when to pick this tool over the sibling dex or apk tools, when to choose the 'strings' action versus 'view-events', or what preconditions the path must satisfy.

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