list_receivers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states a read operation but omits details such as error handling, performance implications, or what happens when the package is not found. The description does not disclose any side effects or constraints beyond the obvious.

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 clear sentence without extraneous words. However, it is too brief, leaving out critical parameter details. While front-loaded with purpose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has two parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format, parameter behavior, or any edge cases. The context signals indicate no param documentation, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not explain the two parameters (package and exported_only) or their purpose beyond the implicit 'exported' in the description. A user cannot infer that exported_only is a boolean that controls filtering.

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 explicitly states 'List exported broadcast receivers of a package', which clearly identifies the verb (List) and the resource (broadcast receivers). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_activities, list_providers, and list_services, which target different Android components.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another listing tool might be more appropriate.

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