list_jni_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond aliasing: no indication of whether the operation is read-only, how expensive it is, whether it requires a disassembler session, or what it returns. An agent cannot determine safety or cost from this text.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so there is no wasted wording. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized: brevity here comes at the cost of nearly all substantive content.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition supplies nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. A bare alias pointer is inadequate to explain the required apk_path, the optional arch, or the result shape.

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 0% for two parameters (apk_path required, arch optional), so the description must compensate. Instead it mentions no parameters at all, leaving 'arch' entirely undefined (format, allowed values, default behavior) in both the schema and the description.

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 does not state any verb or resource of its own; it only says it is an 'Alias for resolve_apk_jni_map'. That does let an agent infer the operation exists elsewhere, but the tool's actual purpose (listing JNI methods in an APK) must be guessed from its name and the sibling. It is closer to a pointer than a purpose statement.

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?

Saying it is an alias implies the two tools are interchangeable, which is weak but non-zero guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over resolve_apk_jni_map, whether outputs differ, or what preconditions (e.g., a valid APK path) apply.

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