Android Security Analyzer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the input and output (structured security report with findings, severity, recommendations), which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), performance expectations, or limits like file size default (which is in the schema). The description adds moderate behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core function and then concisely lists inputs and outputs. Every element is informative, with no redundant or filler language.

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 complex tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, accepted input types, and output summary. It does not list all possible file types (e.g., resources, proguard files), but the examples are representative and the schema covers required fields. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of findings, severity scores, and recommendations.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description additionally clarifies the tool's context by listing accepted project file types (AndroidManifest.xml, build.gradle, etc.), which helps the agent understand what to put in the 'files' array. It adds value while relying on the schema for detailed parameter definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyzes') and clearly identifies the resource (Android project source code) and the goal (security vulnerabilities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'explain_finding' and 'list_android_security_checks' by focusing on project-wide analysis and producing a structured report.

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 when to use this tool (analyzing an Android project's security posture) and lists accepted file types, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for explaining a single finding or listing checks, which are covered by siblings). Clear context is provided, but exclusions are absent.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (why it is a risk, how to fix it, false positive considerations), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. While not exhaustive, it gives sufficient insight into the tool's behavior for a simple explanation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key return items. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and returned content. It is not overly complex; a 4 reflects that it is complete enough for this simple tool, though it might benefit from a note about expected input format (e.g., must be a valid finding ID from a scan).

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (findingId), describing it as a rule/finding ID with examples. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond echoing 'rule ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: explaining a specific security finding by rule ID. It uses a specific verb ('Explains') and resource ('specific security finding'), and the focus on a single finding distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_android_security_checks or analyze_android_project.

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 when to use the tool: when you have a specific finding ID and need an explanation of risk, fix, and false positives. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the intended use clear. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, hence not a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Returns') and specifies the exact information returned. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a health endpoint this is not a significant gap. The behavior is sufficiently transparent for an agent.

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 sentence, direct and free of redundant words. It efficiently communicates the purpose without any fluff, earning the maximum score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description lists all returned elements: health status, version, and rule engine statistics. This is complete and does not omit any critical information for an agent to invoke or interpret the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and no further detail is necessary.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and an explicit resource ('server health status, version, and rule engine statistics'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools (analyze_android_project, explain_finding, etc.), which are focused on analysis and explanations rather than server status.

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 usage is implied by the nature of the tool—a health check—but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. The sibling tools are clearly different, making confusion unlikely, but the description does not explicitly say 'Use this to verify server availability or version'.

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

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 clearly indicates the tool returns a list, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that it has no side effects. This is minimal transparency for a listing tool, but not rich enough to warrant a higher score.

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 sentence that directly states the action and the output fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary information.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the return fields sufficiently, even without an output schema. It lacks explicit context about when to use it relative to sibling tools, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 input schema provides a full description of the 'category' parameter with enum values and filtering semantics, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('all implemented security checks/rules') with the exact output fields (IDs, categories, severity levels, descriptions). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_android_project and explain_finding, which serve different purposes.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like analyze_android_project and explain_finding, explicit differentiation is missing.

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