list_device_tier_configsList all device tier configurations for an Android app by providing its package name, enabling review of device targeting settings.
List all device tier configs for an app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral details. There is no annotation contradiction, but the behavioral context is minimal.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the action and scope with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter list operation with an output schema and fully documented parameter, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the operation is simple enough that the 'all' scope and package_name parameter cover the essential context.
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 only parameter, package_name, already has a schema description ('App package name'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description's 'for an app' reinforces this mapping but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('device tier configs'), and a clear scope ('all ... for an app'). This directly distinguishes it from the sibling tools get_device_tier_config and create_device_tier_config.
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 implies the tool is for enumerating all configs rather than fetching or creating a single one, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when to use this tool versus get_device_tier_config or create_device_tier_config.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.