Get App Details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the shape of the response (field types, settings, option IDs) and a tool-specific gotcha about category fields' settings.options. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read or mention permission/auth requirements, but the return semantics are well explained.

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, front-loaded with what is returned, then the critical usage rule. Slightly redundant, since 'learn the field structure' restates the earlier field-definition mention, and the all-caps IMPORTANT banner is heavier than needed, but there is little waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return values, and it does so concretely, including the category-field option ID detail an agent needs before writing items. Missing only peripheral information such as error behavior or auth requirements, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 coverage is 100% and the single app_id parameter is already documented in the schema, including its provenance ('from podio_list_apps'). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns full app details') and enumerates exactly what comes back: field definitions with types, settings, and option IDs. This distinguishes it from sibling lookups like podio_list_apps, which only list app IDs.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Always call this before creating items to learn the field structure,' which tells the agent when this tool is required rather than optional. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when this call is unnecessary, but the primary usage trigger is unambiguous.

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