grant_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key behavior of bypassing the permission dialog, but omits other important traits: what happens if the permission is already granted, whether the tool requires root or specific Android version, error handling, or side effects on other apps. The disclosure is partial and insufficient for a system-mutating tool.

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 a single sentence with a dash and an example, front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place: the verb, the resource, the implementation hint ('pm grant'), the example, and the user benefit. No redundant text or unnecessary details.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should describe what the tool returns or error behavior. It does not mention success/failure responses, side effects, or status codes. The tool modifies system permissions, yet the description omits critical context about return values, error cases, and post-conditions.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds only a reinforcing example ('android.permission.CAMERA') and implicitly notes that serial is optional (since it is not required in the schema). This meets the baseline but does not provide additional meaning 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 action ('Grant a runtime permission'), specifies the target resource ('an app'), provides a concrete example ('android.permission.CAMERA'), and distinguishes the tool from the sibling 'revoke_permission' by its verb. It also explains the practical benefit of skipping the dialog, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool ('skip the in-app permission dialog so you can drive straight to the feature') but does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives like 'revoke_permission', or note prerequisites (e.g., device debug mode). The context is adequate but lacks exclusions or boundary conditions.

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