package_attack_surface

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

The description accurately describes the tool's read-only behavior and return values. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden; it is transparent about what it does, though it could mention prerequisites or performance implications.

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 paragraph with two sentences plus a concise args section. Every sentence provides value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the return values and usage strategy. Given the existence of an output schema, it does not need to detail return format. It could be more complete by mentioning any limitations or dependencies (e.g., internet access), but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema's single 'package' parameter is clarified with the description 'Fully qualified package name, e.g. com.example.app', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains the parameter.

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 it shows the high-level attack surface of one package, returning counts of exported components and a debuggable flag. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list individual components by summarizing them as a first step for IPC testing.

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 explicitly recommends this as the first call for scoping IPC testing and advises picking packages with non-zero exported components, providing both when and how to use.

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