bevigil_get_hosts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the required input (Android package ID) and the output (a list of unique hostnames/domains extracted from the app), implying a read-only operation. It does not discuss error conditions or authentication requirements, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 three concise sentences: what it does, why it is useful, and what it requires/returns. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the input, the output type, and the use case. It could mention limitations such as statically vs. dynamically extracted code or clarify differences from the subdomains tool, but it is largely complete for its simplicity.

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 single parameter package_id is fully documented in the schema with clear examples, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description restates that a package ID is required but adds no significant extra meaning beyond the schema's own description.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get hostnames and domains found in an Android application's code') and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming the extracted data type. It also explains how this output is useful for discovering backend services.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('discover backend servers, APIs, and third-party services') and the required input. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with sibling tools like get_subdomains or get_urls.

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