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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating the operation is non-running/non-publishing and that status persists after authoring access is removed. This clarifies side-effect-free inspection and historical availability, though it does not address auth or 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purposeaint, then the include_source guidance, then the persistence guarantee. No filler or repetition.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the key operational context: accepted build inspection, no run/publish side effects, source recovery, and availability after authoring access removal. Minor ambiguity with get_app/get_app_source remains unaddressed.

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 only restates the include_source purpose ('recover the exact submitted source') that the schema already conveys. The description adds little semantic value beyond what the parameter schema provides.

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 identifies the operation as inspecting an accepted app build without running or publishing it, which is specific and distinct from generic retrieval. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_app or get_app_source, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('inspect an accepted app build') and explicitly instructs using include_source to recover the exact submitted source. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage scenario is well defined.

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