bevigil_get_wordlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it extracts data from the app's code and returns a list of path/endpoint strings, which clarifies the output structure. This goes beyond annotations without repeating them. No contradictions.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase adds value, such as 'generated from the app's code' and 'returns a list of path/endpoint strings'—no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with three parameters fully described in the schema and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and typical use cases. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific insights. All three parameters (package_id, limit, offset) are already well-described in the schema. The description focuses on output and use cases, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 'get a wordlist generated from an Android application's code' and explicitly lists contents (URL paths, API endpoints, file paths, parameters). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_urls or get_hosts by focusing on a consolidated wordlist for fuzzing and API mapping.

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 states it is 'useful for fuzzing, directory brute-forcing, and understanding the app's API surface,' which provides clear use cases. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or directly compare to alternative tools, but the intent is evident from the stated purposes.

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