find_provider_uris

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Find') but does not explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or authentication needs. The Drozer reference adds some context but lacks thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 with two focused sentences: one for the core purpose and one for the parameter. No unnecessary words or tautologies.

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 has an output schema, return values don't need explanation. The description is sufficient for a simple parameter but could briefly mention typical usage flow (e.g., first step before querying providers). Overall, it's nearly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the only parameter 'package'—its role, optional nature, and default behavior (scan all). This adds substantial meaning beyond the input 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's purpose: finding content:// URIs exposed by installed apps, using a specific verb 'find' and resource 'content:// URIs'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on URI discovery rather than querying or scanning.

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 provides context on optional package filtering but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_providers or scan_provider_injection. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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