list_generated_apks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the output type (one entry per downloadable generated APK), the types of APKs, and the availability of a download ID for download_generated_apk. It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but given that it is a read-only listing operation, these details are not critical.

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 core purpose, followed by a concise clarification of the output and its link to download_generated_apk. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present), the description suffices. It explains what entries are returned and how to use them, and it does not need to elaborate on return fields because those are documented in the output schema. The description is complete for this operation.

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% (both package_name and version_code have meaningful descriptions). The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that version_code refers to the app bundle. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage; no extra parameter formatting or constraints are provided.

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 lists APKs generated by Google Play from an app bundle version, specifying the resource type and distinguishing it from siblings like list_apks or list_bundles. It also names the exact sub-types (split, standalone, universal, asset pack slice, recovery) and connects to download_generated_apk.

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 when to use this tool (when needing generated APKs from a bundle, and for getting download IDs to pass to download_generated_apk). It does not explicitly contrast with list_apks or list_bundles, but the phrase 'app bundle version' makes the context clear. No exclusions or prerequisites are noted.

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