google_list_apks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Already available in an edit' implies a read-only listing over existing edit state and hints at prerequisites (an open edit for the package), but it never states read-only nature, permission needs, or that an uncommitted edit is the scope. Some value added, but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero padding, and the returned fields land before any filler. Nothing is wasted, though there is also very little there.

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 two-required-param read over edit state, the single sentence covers what is listed and roughly what comes back (version codes, hashes), which is what an agent needs absent an output schema. Prerequisite and read-only framing are the modest remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's only added signal is that listing is scoped by edit, indirectly reinforcing editId; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'List APKs already available in an edit', with the returned content named (version codes and hashes). It is implicitly distinguishable from google_list_bundles by the APK/bundle distinction, but that contrast is never made explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus google_list_bundles, google_upload_apk, or any other edit-scoped sibling. The only contextual hook is 'in an edit', which the agent must infer means an open edit is required.

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