get_cross_boundary_slice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses which decompilers back each side of the slice, which is useful, but says nothing about failure behavior when a method has no native counterpart, whether the operation is read-only, or how the Java method is matched to its ARM64 implementation.

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 no waste; the parenthetical engine attributions carry real information. It is efficient, though the core output is stated before any clue about inputs.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description only sketches the two halves of the response without return structure, slice depth, or size. For a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing apk_path semantics and prerequisite context leave real 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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Java caller' vaguely implies java_method identifies a method but gives no expected format (signature vs. FQN), and apk_path is not referenced at all — no indication of what it selects or its default.

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+resource: returns the decompiled Java caller (Jadx) plus the typed C/ARM64 implementation (Ghidra/IDA) in one response. An agent can tell what the tool produces, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_cross_boundary_callgraph.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether resolve_apk_jni_map must run first), and no named alternative. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, and get_cross_boundary_callgraph is an obvious competing option left unaddressed.

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