Auditar app (flujo completo)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds that it extracts APK and queries external services (VirusTotal, MobSF), which is consistent. It also explicitly states that it does not uninstall anything, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: one sentence covering all major operations, plus a clarifying sentence about what it does not do. Every part is relevant and there is no redundancy.

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 parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview of the multi-step process and output (consolidated report). It covers the major components, though details about the report format are omitted. For a complex tool with many siblings, it adequately frames the use case.

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 the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain useVirusTotal, useMobsf, and packageName. The description reinforces how these parameters fit into the overall workflow but does not add significant new semantics 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?

The description explicitly states the tool extracts the APK, analyzes permissions, queries VirusTotal and MobSF, and returns a consolidated report. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on individual steps (e.g., apk_pull, vt_file_report, mobsf_scan).

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 indicates a full audit flow and includes a statement 'No desinstala nada' to clarify what it does not do. While it does not explicitly list when to use this versus siblings, the comprehensive nature is implied, and the sibling names provide cues.

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