Get app source

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral risks: hosts may silently drop the middle of oversized results, editing a mutilated source destroys it, and windows carry version/hash for safe edits. It also explains node and slot behavior, providing rich context that annotations do not capture.

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 dense yet compact, with every sentence contributing either to the core operation, the safety rationale, or the parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then details mechanics without verbose padding.

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 complexity, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete: it covers the read-only nature, window mechanics, truncation risk, version/hash coupling to edits, node jumping, and manifest slot behavior. No significant gap remains for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: offset/length select the window, node jumps to a specific element, and slot:manifest returns the declaration object. This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and clarifies how parameters interact.

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 opens with 'Read an app's ui source as a WINDOW,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and key mode of operation. It also distinguishes the manifest slot behavior from the default ui window, making the tool's scope and 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 explains when windowing is needed (to avoid silently truncated oversized results) and ties the returned version/hash to edit_app and save_app, giving strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like app_html or get_app_guide, so guidance on alternatives is implicit rather than explicit.

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