download_generated_apk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds the 'local file' destination concept and the schema clarifies APK 'bytes' are written, which are useful binary-write semantics. However, it doesn't disclose overwrite behavior, directory creation, network/permission needs, or failure handling—gaps amplified by the absence of annotation hints for this side-effecting file-write operation.

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 efficient sentence front-loads the action verb and object with zero filler. Every element—'single,' 'generated,' 'local file'—earns its place by adding scope or constraint.

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 simple single-file download operation with an output schema present, this description is nearly complete. The provenance chain (list_generated_apks → download_generated_apk) is clear, and params are all documented. It falls slightly short of a 5 only because it omits edge-case behavior like overwrite semantics or handling of existing destination files, which are common failure points for download tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema adds meaningful semantics beyond bare names: `download_id` is traced to `list_generated_apks`, `destination_path` specifies writing 'APK bytes', and `version_code` is framed as belonging to 'the app bundle.' This is solid schema-level parameter documentation, though the description adds nothing beyond the structured data.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Download a single generated APK to a local file.' The word 'generated' and 'single' distinguish this from sibling tools like `download_system_apk_variant`, and the schema's cross-reference to `list_generated_apks` reinforces the workflow context. It clearly scopes what this tool does and implicitly contrasts with other download/upload siblings.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit. The schema's download_id description ('from `list_generated_apks`') hints at the prerequisite workflow, and 'single' implies per-file invocation, but the description itself provides no exclusions, alternatives, or explicit 'use this when' guidance compared to similar download tools like `download_system_apk_variant`.

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