bevigil_get_app_packages

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

The annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a minor transparency detail by stating 'Returns package IDs and app names where available,' which hints at potential missing app names. However, it does not elaborate on rate limits, errors, or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured, using only three sentences to convey the purpose, use case, and expected return. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned: 'package IDs and app names where available.' It covers the core functionality and use case. However, it does not mention potential limitations, error conditions, or how pagination parameters affect results, which could be considered a slight gap.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters, and the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description's generic mention of returning packages does not enrich the parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Find Android application packages that reference a given hostname or domain.' It specifies the verb (find), the resource (application packages), and the context (hostname/domain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hosts or get_urls, which focus on other aspects.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this for reverse lookups — given a server/domain, discover which mobile apps communicate with it.' This implies when to use the tool and differentiates it from alternatives, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare directly to siblings.

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