list_smali_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') and optional filtering, but doesn't describe output format (though an output schema exists), pagination, error conditions, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List smali files') and adds qualifying details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and optional features, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and optional filtering. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by addressing parameter details more thoroughly, given the 0% schema coverage. It's mostly complete but has minor 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'package prefix' filtering and 'smali directory', which adds some meaning for two of the three parameters ('package_prefix' and 'smali_dir'), but doesn't explain 'project_dir' or provide details like format, constraints, or examples. It partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('smali files'), specifying the location ('in a specific smali directory') and optional filtering ('by package prefix'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_resources' and 'list_smali_directories' by focusing specifically on smali files rather than resources or directories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_smali_file' (which retrieves a single file) or 'search_in_files' (which searches content).

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 usage when needing to enumerate smali files in a directory, possibly with package-based filtering. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_smali_directories' (for directories) or 'get_smali_file' (for a single file), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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