Get Expansion File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation via 'get' and does not contradict any annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, permissions, or the nature of the returned information, though the output schema likely covers that.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and efficiently explains the purpose. It includes helpful background on expansion files without any fluff.

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 straightforward get operation with a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's domain (expansion files) and relies on the schema for details, which is appropriate.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the expansion_file_type parameter or how version_code and package_name are used together.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves APK expansion file information, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like upload_expansion_file, which handles uploading, and also provides context on why expansion files exist.

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 description implies usage through the verb 'get' and context about large apps, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., upload_expansion_file) or provide exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer the read-only nature.

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