getAppConfigureExample

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It describes the tool as a getter, implying a safe read operation, but does not explicitly state absence of side effects, auth requirements, or return format. Since it's an example fetcher, the minimal transparency is acceptable but not detailed.

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 entire description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without superfluous words or repetition.

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 extremely simple: no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description conveys the purpose clearly. It doesn't describe the output format, but the output schema covers that. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning that the example is a YAML workflow file, but that is inferable.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. Per the rubric, a tool with zero parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to provide parameter details as none exist.

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 uses a specific verb 'gets' and identifies a clear resource: 'an example of a GitHub Action for configuring an app.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling example tools like getProcfileExample, which target different content, and from operations like configureApp.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as other example getters or the actual configureApp operation. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or how this example relates to a configuration workflow.

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