google_list_bundles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'List' reasonably signals a read-only operation, and it discloses that version codes and hashes are included in the result. However, it does not state that an edit must already be open, whether results are paginated, which hash algorithm is used, or what happens with an invalid/expired editId.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope and the returned fields packed in and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, telling the agent that version codes and hashes come back compensates for the missing return schema. The main remaining gap is the edit lifecycle prerequisite, which is not mentioned.

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% with only two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for editId or packageName, though the edit-scoping context marginally clarifies what editId refers to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Android App Bundles') and adds scope ('already available in an edit') plus the fields returned (version codes and hashes). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as google_list_apks or google_upload_bundle, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 'already available in an edit' implies the tool is used after an edit exists and before committing it, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative routes (e.g., upload first via google_upload_bundle, or list APKs instead) are given. An agent must infer usage from the required editId parameter.

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