App authoring guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that this is a static written contract with fixed chapters ('each chapter stands alone'), which is useful context about the return content, but says nothing about size or auth.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the guide's contents with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-line documentation lookup, though the enumeration is dense and could have flagged the chapter default.

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 read-only, one-optional-param documentation fetch with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description adequately tells the agent what it will receive. The only minor gap is that the optional 'topic' chapters are not mentioned, but the schema carries them.

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 coverage is 100%, so the enum values and the default behavior are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not touch the 'topic' parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource (the authoring contract) and enumerates exactly what it contains: the window.oma API, CSS design tokens, the data model, and a working template. It is clearly a documentation retrieval tool, distinguishable from mutation siblings like save_app or edit_app, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'for creating or editing an app' implies the context in which to reach for this guide, and the schema note 'default basics: the contract + template' hints at entry points. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative like get_app_html, and no stated preconditions, so usage is only loosely implied.

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