App Base Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether it is a read-only call, what authentication/session profile is required, what 'base data' actually contains, or how it relates to the host/port/scheme/profile connection parameters.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and nothing to trim, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Structure is fine; content is thin.

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 four optional connection parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that only spares the description from explaining return values, the description still leaves the agent unable to tell what this tool does that its many app_* siblings do not.

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 schema already documents host, port, scheme, and profile in Chinese. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('获取应用中心基础数据' / 'Get app center basic data') is essentially the title restated in Chinese, with no specific verb+resource beyond 'get' and the vague noun 'basic data'. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like app_list, app_status, or app_config_sys, which all plausibly return 'app center' information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other app_* siblings (app_list, app_status, app_entry_list, app_desktop_list, etc.). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternatives are named.

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