bevigil_get_s3_buckets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that finding bucket names does not confirm vulnerability and that buckets may be publicly accessible if misconfigured, which adds important interpretive context beyond a simple read operation. It could mention return format or potential false positives, but the caveat adds significant value.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, the practical use case, and an essential security caveat. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and a critical interpretation caveat. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the return value ('bucket names'). The tool is small enough that no further detail is necessary.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the only parameter (package_id) is fully described with a definition and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but none is needed given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find') and resource ('Amazon S3 bucket names') with clear scope ('in an Android application's code'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like bevigil_get_urls and bevigil_get_subdomains, which target other asset types.

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 context on when to use this tool ('Useful for discovering cloud storage assets associated with a mobile app') but does not explicitly rule out alternatives or mention cases where it should not be used. Still, the use case is clear enough to guide selection.

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