App details or status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), so the description's added value is the real differentiator: it documents the return shape for status (data.status keyed by app ID with is_installed/is_running), the error behavior for bad IDs, and the non-obvious interpretation that an empty run_state or APP_RUNNER_STAGE_FREE is not a failure. That is meaningful context an agent could not get from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: detail behavior, status behavior, and a failure-mode caveat. It is front-loaded on the default view and wastes little, though the heavy embedded quoting makes it slightly harder to scan than necessary.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does so for both views, including the status payload structure and the sentinel-value caveat. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the relationship to sibling app-listing tools is unaddressed.

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%, including the enum for view and the 'exactly one for detail' constraint on app_ids, so the schema already carries the parameter contract. The description restates the view semantics mainly in terms of what each returns, adding modest meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 both modes explicitly: view "detail" returns everything about one app, and view "status" returns install, running and auto-start state for one or more apps. That is a specific verb+resource with the mode split made clear. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling list tools like nas_app_list, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives clear selection logic between the two views (single app detail vs multi-app status) and adds a forward pointer that install_parameters keys are what nas_app_manage expects, while warning that values must come from the user. It also tells the agent that an unknown app ID is an error. It does not name any sibling tool as an alternative for the listing case, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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