getApp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral nuance: app handles are not globally unique, which is important for correct invocation. However, it doesn't mention error behavior (e.g., ambiguous handle, not found) or confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Get.'

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 two sentences and every word earns its place. It front-loads the core action and follows with a concise reason for the optional parameter, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple getter with only two params and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and the key scoping nuance, which is sufficient for this complexity. It could add error-handling details, but those aren't critical given the output schema.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the purpose of both parameters. 'App handle' is identified as the lookup key, and 'account handle' is explained as an optional disambiguator due to naming scope. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare 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 clear verb+resource: 'Get app by handle.' It specifies the retrieval method (by handle) and adds relevant context about uniqueness within an account/environment. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like listApps, but it's sufficiently distinct.

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 explains when to optionally provide the account handle (when app names are ambiguous across accounts), but it doesn't discuss when to use this tool instead of listApps or other alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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