apps_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares 'Read-only,' which discloses the safe nature of the tool. It also explains the manifest structure in detail, adding context beyond a simple 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second elaborates on the manifest details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 get tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return structure and parameter purpose. It could mention that the return is JSON, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% coverage (app_id with description), but the description adds extensive meaning: it tells what the parameter is used for (by id) and crucially explains the return value's structure (manifest with inputs). This compensates for the lack of output 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 clearly states it retrieves a micro-app's manifest and bundle facts by ID, differentiating it from sibling tools like apps_list (lists all apps) and apps_run (executes the app). It specifies the resource and action unambiguously.

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 use after apps_list to get an app ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or what prerequisites are needed. No direct guidance on when not to use it.

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