App (read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'no side effects' is largely redundant; the real added value is the per-action disclosure of what each call returns (product/version/edition/current page/keyframe mode; the five preset kinds). No permission or rate-limit context, but the operation is a safe read.

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?

One framing sentence followed by a tight bulleted action list; the scoping statement is front-loaded and the required-marker convention ('* = required') is declared once. No wasted prose.

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 an output schema present, return-shape explanation is not strictly needed and is partially duplicated here anyway. Both actions are documented with their parameters, and the escape hatch to describe_action covers the additionalProperties:true nested object, so an agent has enough to call correctly.

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% but the schema only documents the action enum; the `kind` parameter and its allowed values (layout, keyboard, user-preferences, burn-in, Fairlight) exist only in the description, which compensates substantively. Remaining per-action params are deferred to describe_action, which is acceptable but not fully self-contained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read app state') and enumerates both supported actions (get_app_info, list_presets) with their outputs. It is clearly separable from app_write/app_delete by the read framing, though it never names those siblings 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?

'use it to find ids and check results' gives concrete intent-based guidance rather than a bare restatement. It doesn't state when *not* to use it or point to a specific alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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