adb_selinux_denials

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

No annotations are provided. The description implies a read-only operation (listing messages) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It could be more explicit about the non-destructive nature.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the primary function, and the second adds useful context and use case. No unnecessary words.

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 provides a good high-level understanding of the tool's purpose and output contents. However, it lacks details about the output format or examples, which would be helpful for a diagnostic tool with no output schema.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (lines, process, device). The description does not add additional semantic context beyond the schema.

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 lists recent SELinux AVC denials from logcat and kernel logs, specifying what information is shown (blocked processes, actions, SELinux contexts). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like adb_selinux_status and adb_logcat.

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 it is 'useful for diagnosing permission issues and understanding security policy enforcement,' which implies appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternative tools like adb_permission_audit.

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