Permisos de una app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the analytical description. The description adds that it highlights dangerous permissions, which provides a behavioral detail beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the response format, error handling, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description adds moderate value.

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 that front-loads the key information: it analyzes permissions and highlights dangerous ones. Every word contributes to the purpose. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description covers the core purpose but lacks details about return format (e.g., list of permissions, severity levels), prerequisites (ADB connection), and failure modes (e.g., invalid package name). For a basic analysis tool, it is minimally complete but could provide more context for an AI agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description and pattern for packageName. The description does not add additional parameter-level information; it focuses on the output (highlighting dangerous permissions). Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not contradict 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 uses a specific verb 'Analiza' (analyzes) and clearly identifies the resource (permissions of a package) and the outcome (highlights dangerous ones). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_list_packages which list packages, or mobsf_scan which performs security scanning. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., ADB connection, device attached), nor conditions under which this tool is preferred over others like vt_file_report or mobsf_scorecard. The context signals show many sibling tools, but no explicit usage guidelines are given.

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