aadc.audit_permissions

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

The description states the tool audits for permissions outside an allowlist, implying a read-only operation. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it lacks details on error handling, file existence assumptions, or side effects. It is minimally adequate.

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 conveys the core purpose and scope. It is concise and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured without adding length.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input files and allowlist concept but does not describe return values or error handling. It is adequate for a simple audit tool but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters adequately described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: auditing native iOS Info.plist and Android AndroidManifest.xml for permissions outside an allowlist. It also references standards 8 and 10. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling audit tools, though the specific file types provide some distinction.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other audit tools (e.g., audit_all, audit_defaults). No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given. The agent would need to infer usage from the tool's specific focus on permissions.

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