Retrieves all APK packages sorted by class count, with totals and likely-library flags, so you can map app structure before searching.
Get all packages in the APK sorted by class count. Shows total_classes, total_packages, and per-package name, class_count, is_likely_library. Use this first to understand the APK structure before searching.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully details the output (total_classes, total_packages, per-package data) and sorting, but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, which is implied but could be more transparent.
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?
Two sentences: the first defines the output and sorting, the second provides usage guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary text.
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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It also covers the purpose and usage, making it complete for an agent.
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 tool has 0 parameters; baseline is 4 according to rules. The description adds no parameter info but none is needed since there are no params.
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 tool gets all packages sorted by class count and lists the output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by advising to use it first for understanding APK structure.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use this first to understand the APK structure before searching', giving clear when-to-use guidance and implying an alternative (searching) for further analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.