bevigil_investigate_app

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that output is a structured investigation summary with observed findings, and importantly clarifies that findings are not vulnerabilities without further analysis. It adds context about the nature of the data, though it doesn't detail the report format or any rate limits.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then output/caveat. Every sentence adds value, and it is concise without being under-specified.

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 the tool's combined nature, the description covers its purpose, usage, output, and a caveat. It lists the data sources and contrasts with alternatives, making it sufficient for an agent. A slight gap is lack of detail on the exact structure of the report, but output schema isn't required.

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 already provides a thorough description of package_id with an example and explanation of comprehensive lookup. The description doesn't add additional parameter-specific details, so baseline 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 it performs a comprehensive investigation of an Android app, combining multiple lookups (hosts, S3, parameters, wordlist) into a structured report. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with querying individual 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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you need a broad overview... rather than querying individual asset types,' giving clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly naming alternatives. This is direct and useful.

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