adb_permission_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as auditing and comparing grants, which suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 three sentences long, each providing distinct and essential information: what the tool does, its output structure (grouped and flagged), and its analytical capability (comparison against manifest). No redundant or overly verbose language is present.

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 description sufficiently explains the tool's output (listing of dangerous permissions grouped by category, flagging over-provisioned permissions) and its comparison logic. However, it does not mention the output format (e.g., JSON, table) or whether the audit is real-time or based on current state. Given the lack of an output schema, this level of detail is good but could be slightly more complete.

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% for both parameters (packageName and device). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as formatting or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Audit' with the resource 'runtime permission grants for a package'. It details specific actions: listing granted dangerous permissions, grouping by category, flagging over-provisioned permissions, and comparing against a manifest. This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools like adb_list_permissions or adb_package_info.

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 the tool is for security auditing of permission grants, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools like adb_list_permissions (for simple listing) or adb_revoke_permission (for revocation). No usage exclusions or best-practice guidance is provided.

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