get_app_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes what is returned but does not disclose side effects, permissions requirements, error behavior, or read-only nature. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and lists outputs; the second gives a practical use case. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields and indicates it is workspace-specific. It could mention error handling or availability of configuration, but the information provided covers essential usage.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter details because none are needed. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary information.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving iOS/Android app configuration for the workspace. It enumerates specific data returned (app scheme, bundle IDs, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle links, projects, or templates.

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 states an explicit use case: 'Use this to know how to integrate the SDK or build deep link URLs.' It implicitly suggests this is the correct tool for configuration queries, and no sibling tool overlaps. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives.

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