adb_permission_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It details the output behavior: listing granted dangerous permissions grouped by category, flagging over-provisioned ones, and comparing to the manifest. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the analysis description implies no destruction. This is good but could be more precise.

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 highly concise, with two sentences that front-load the core action and then elaborate on the analysis details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 complexity and the absence of output schema and annotations, the description explains the output format and analysis sufficiently. It could mention that the tool operates over ADB or specify output format, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('audit') and specifies the resource ('runtime permission grants for a package'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'adb_list_permissions' by detailing grouping by category, flagging over-provisioned permissions, and comparing against the manifest.

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 usage for permission auditing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adb_list_permissions'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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