bevigil_get_app_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns package IDs and app names where available, which is useful, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or what happens with no results. Since this is a read-only lookup, the lack of such details is less critical, but still not fully transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, when to use it, why it's useful, and what it returns. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, use case, and output format. It could be more thorough about potential limitations or error conditions, but for this simple lookup tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers the single hostname parameter with a clear description including an example. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it simply repeats that a domain is required. Per the rubric, with 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'Android application packages that reference a given hostname or domain.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_subdomains or get_hosts by framing it as a reverse lookup from domain to apps.

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 states 'Use this for reverse lookups' and provides the scenario (discover which mobile apps communicate with a server/domain). It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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