bevigil_get_wordlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output as a list of path/endpoint strings and describes the input source (Android app code), making the operation's behavior reasonably transparent. It could mention error cases or response format details, but for a read-only generation tool it's adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences each serve a purpose: action and result, content composition, and usage context/return type. No redundant wording 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?

The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description needs to cover the return value, which it does ('Returns a list of path/endpoint strings'). It also provides sufficient context for the tool's role among siblings, making it effectively 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?

Schema coverage is 100% because the sole parameter package_id has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gets a wordlist generated from an Android app's code, enumerating the included components (URL paths, API endpoints, file paths, parameters). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_urls and get_s3_buckets, which target other data 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?

Explicitly states useful purposes (fuzzing, directory brute-forcing, understanding API surface), giving clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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