get_apk_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read/parse nature of the operation, the dot-to-underscore transformation, and the AUL rule compliance of the generated ID. It does not discuss error conditions or non-APK inputs, but the core behavior is clearly and honestly described.

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 dense sentences: the first states the operation and transformation, the second gives the exact usage context. Every clause earns its place, and the most important behavioral info is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the input, the processing, the output format, and the intended usage point in the upload flow. It could be slightly more complete by noting error/failure behavior, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%: the single parameter apk_path is already described as the absolute path to a local APK file. The description reinforces this by saying '本地 APK 文件', but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('解析' / parse), a specific resource (APK package name), and the exact output transformation (dots replaced with underscores to produce an AUL-compliant game ID). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_cover_image or release_game_asset, which operate on different resources and outputs.

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 explicitly states when the tool is used: before mobile (library=mobile) game upload for automatic ID generation. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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