get_app_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the duty to disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal a key behavior: the single-app default when app_id is omitted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other potential traits such as whether the call is read-only or if it might perform side effects, though the nature of the tool suggests it's safe. This is a minor gap; the description is transparent about its main quirky behavior but lacks explicit safety confirmation.

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?

The description is extremely concise, exactly two sentences, with the key information front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by a practical usage hint. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an agent to process quickly.

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 simple tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the primary purpose, the entry-point role, and the default behavior. It could potentially mention what kind of metadata or publication state is included, but since the tool is straightforward and the schema is fully documented, this is a minor omission. The absence of an output schema is fine as the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 schema already covers 100% of the parameter with a clear description of app_id (optional, single-app default applies). The tool description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema, except for reinforcing the default behavior context. Given perfect schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not add significant new semantics beyond what's already stated.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as returning three specific types of information (configuration, publication state, metadata) in a single call, using an actionable verb ('Returns') and specifying the resource ('app'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_build_status' and 'get_rejection' by emphasizing the 'one call' overview nature, and the phrase 'Start here' reinforces its role as an entry point.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: it's a starting point for app information ('Start here'), and it explains the default behavior when app_id is omitted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_build_status' or 'get_rejection', but given it's an overview tool, the guidance is adequate.

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