grant_permission

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed, device must support runtime permissions), or the outcome of granting an already-granted permission. The example adds a minor clue but is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the action and includes a relevant example. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and gives an example for permission. It does not explicitly mention the optional serial behavior or return value, but these are implicitly handled by the schema and are not critical for a straightforward grant operation.

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 only 33% (only serial has a description). The description provides an example for the permission parameter (android.permission.CAMERA) but does not clarify what 'package' refers to or give formatting hints. It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves the package parameter undefined.

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 states a specific verb 'Grant' and a clear resource 'runtime permission to an app', with a concrete example (android.permission.CAMERA). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_app or install_app, which have different verbs and 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 implies when to use the tool (when a runtime permission needs to be granted), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions are stated, so it relies on the user inferring the usage context from the purpose.

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