bevigil_investigate_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false不言而喻，说明是安全只读操作。Description adds the crucial caveat that findings are observed data and do not indicate vulnerabilities without further analysis, which is valuable context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is two sentences plus a note, all front-loaded with purpose and usage distinction. No 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?

The tool is complex (combines multiple lookups) but has only one parameter and strong annotations. The description mentions the combined nature, the alternative, and the 'observed data' caveat. Without an output schema, it gives enough context for the agent to understand its scope and limitations.

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 covers the single parameter fully (100% coverage). The tool description repeats the schema's definition but adds no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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 performs a comprehensive investigation of an Android app, combining multiple lookups (hosts, S3 buckets, parameters, wordlist) into a single report. It explicitly contrasts with querying individual asset types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bevigil_get_hosts and bevigil_get_subdomains.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this when you need a broad overview of an app's exposed infrastructure rather than querying individual asset types.' This directly addresses alternatives and sets up a clear decision rule.

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