adb_selinux_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks enforcement modes and that root access enriches output, but it fails to explicitly state that the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The lack of a clear safety declaration is a gap.

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 long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (enforcement mode, policy version, denial count, and root details). However, it does not specify the format of the denial count or policy version, leaving some ambiguity. Slightly more detail would improve 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?

The only parameter 'device' is fully described in the schema with 'Device serial', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 checks SELinux enforcement mode, policy version, and recent denial count. It uses a specific action verb 'Check' and identifies the resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'adb_selinux_denials', which likely provides more detailed denial information, so the differentiation is unclear.

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 checking SELinux status and mentions that root access provides additional details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'adb_selinux_denials', nor does it provide any exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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