App HTML (internal)

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

With readOnlyHint true and openWorldHint false provided by annotations, the description adds context about the return content (trust tier, capability grants) and its internal purpose for the loader widget. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second gives explicit usage guidance. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 internal read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and directs to the recommended alternative. It is appropriately scoped and complete for its intended use.

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 has a single required parameter 'name' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention 'name' at all, forcing the agent to infer it refers to the app name from context. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema parameter descriptions.

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 returns raw app HTML plus trust tier and capability grants, specifically for the universal loader widget. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_app, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says it is internal, not useful to call directly, and directs users to get_app to read source. This is clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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