app_info

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already establishes this is a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the package must be allowlisted, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what happens if the package is not allowlisted or what metadata is returned, so transparency is only partially enhanced.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Inspect metadata') and immediately specifies the scope ('for an allowlisted package'). There is no redundant or unrelated information, and it is highly concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should provide some indication of what is returned. Saying 'metadata' is vague and does not convey the breadth or structure of the returned information. Given there are sibling tools like permissions_list and app_list, more context about what distinguishes this tool's output would be valuable. The description is too minimal for full completeness.

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 provides package_name as a string with length limits, but no description. The tool description says 'allowlisted package', which adds semantic meaning to the parameter: the package must be allowlisted. This is helpful, but it does not explain the format or other constraints beyond that. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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's function: inspect metadata for an allowlisted package. The verb 'inspect' and resource 'metadata' are specific, and the scope 'allowlisted package' distinguishes it from siblings like app_list which lists packages. It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 implies use when you need metadata for a specific package, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like app_list or permissions_list. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned beyond the allowlisting constraint, which is inferred rather than explained. Thus, usage guidance is only implicit.

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