adb_selinux_denials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (logcat and kernel logs) and the type of information returned, but does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., permissions), side effects, or limitations. This 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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence and adds detail and use case in the second, earning its keep without fluff.

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 is a simple listing operation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, data source, and typical use case. However, it could mention the output format or any permission requirements for completeness.

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 all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; parameter semantics are fully captured in the schema itself.

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's purpose: listing recent SELinux AVC denial messages from logcat and kernel logs. It specifies what information is shown (blocked processes, actions, contexts) and distinguishes it from other ADB tools by focusing on security denials.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for diagnosing permission issues and understanding security policy enforcement,' providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to siblings like adb_selinux_status or adb_logcat.

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