MobSF: ejecutar análisis estático

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it performs 'static analysis', but lacks details on side effects (e.g., if already scanned, time duration, or state changes). No contradiction with 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary; 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 scanning workflow, the description omits key context: what the tool returns (no output schema) and that results can be retrieved via mobsf_report or mobsf_scorecard. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling tool names.

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?

The schema provides full coverage for the single parameter 'hash' with a description. The tool description reiterates the hash as identifier. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies; the description adds no new semantic value 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 clearly states the action (launches static analysis), the resource (APK), and the condition (already uploaded, identified by MobSF hash). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mobsf_upload (upload) and mobsf_report (retrieve results).

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 the prerequisite (APK must be uploaded) by stating 'ya subido'. It clearly indicates when to use (after upload), but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternative tools for non-analyzed APKs.

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