get_system_apk_variant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description essentially restates the tool name and adds only 'previously created,' which hints at existence requirements but doesn't clarify the read-only nature, error behavior for missing variants, permissions needed, or whether the binary content is returned versus just metadata. For a 3-parameter, 100%-required tool with no annotation fallback, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to the meaning. It's appropriately terse for a get-style tool, though it edges slightly toward under-specification rather than genuine helpfulness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and full schema coverage for parameters, the structured data covers part of the picture. However, the existence of sibling tools like download_system_apk_variant and list_system_apk_variants means the description should clarify what makes this 'get' distinct (e.g., does it return variant metadata only, not the APK file?). The description is adequate for a simple read but leaves the file-vs-metadata question unresolved.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description (variant_id, package_name, version_code). Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the tool description does not need to repeat parameter details. No value added by the description, but none is strictly required either.

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 identifies the verb (Get) and resource (system APK variant), and 'previously created' adds scope. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related siblings like download_system_apk_variant or list_system_apk_variants, so it's clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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 'previously created' weakly implies this is for retrieving existing variants rather than creating new ones. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over the very similar get/download/list siblings, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The usage context is only implied, not stated.

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