ap_get_app_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned but does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, side-effect-free, or whether it requires an active ArmorPaint session. For a simple getter, the read-only nature is likely inferred, but error conditions and response behavior are not disclosed.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Application-level facts') and then lists the specific outputs. Every word earns its place, with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary examples. It is concise while still being informative.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives a useful high-level summary of the return contents but stops short of specifying the exact field names or data types. It also does not mention any prerequisites such as the need for a live bridge connection or behavior if the application is unavailable. The list is sufficient to decide when to call it, but not fully complete for knowing exactly what to expect.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description needs to add no parameter semantics since there are none to document. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion.

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 identifies the tool as returning application-level facts and enumerates specific data items: window title, size/position, data directory, and project format version. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ap_get_context and ap_project_get_info. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but the tool name and the noun phrase 'Application-level facts' make the purpose obvious.

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 listed facts imply when to use this tool: when you need window information, the data directory, or the project format version. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as ap_get_context or ap_project_get_info, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is only implied, not explicitly guided.

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