scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by saying results are tiered and that each tier reports 'what each loses', which tells the agent the output is advisory rather than actionable. It does not say whether a device must be connected or how results are scoped, leaving some gaps.

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?

One dense sentence with the primary object ('bloat') front-loaded and the tier detail in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the flow and the second object (unknown preinstalled apps) is tacked on at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does partially: tiers plus per-tier tradeoffs plus unknown apps. It omits whether a device connection is required, whether results are cached, and how the agent should act on them, which matters for a scan tool feeding a debloat pipeline.

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?

There is a single optional 'device' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the adb serial and the multi-phone case. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and two concrete resources: bloat and unknown preinstalled apps. The parenthetical about safe/recommended/optional tiers further pins down what 'bloat' means here, which separates it from siblings like plan_debloat or report. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word 'Find' suggests this is the discovery step that precedes plan_debloat or apply_plan, but the description never says when to call this versus those tools or what prerequisites exist (e.g. a connected device). No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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