get_app_info

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. It does disclose the key prerequisite (Designer must be running) and what is returned, but it never states that the call is read-only, whether it fails or degrades when no package/graph is active, or what the response looks like.

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 tight sentences: the return payload is front-loaded and the precondition follows. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 no-input, no-output-schema status tool, the description covers the essentials by enumerating the returned fields. The only gap is ambiguity around what 'herramientas detectadas' means and what happens when no graph or package is active.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so semantics are trivially complete; the description correctly implies no input is needed and instead explains what is reported back. Baseline for zero-param tools 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 names a concrete verb (Devuelve) and enumerates the specific resources returned: Designer version, the active graph and package, and detected tools. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_node_info or list_graphs, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the precondition 'Requiere Designer abierto' signals when the tool will work, and the enumerated outputs suggest it is a state/environment check. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or exclusions.

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