app_emojis_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the default application_id behavior and the return shape, giving useful beyond-annotation detail without contradicting annotations.

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 compact, clearly sectioned, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the returns line is short and precise.

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 read-only fetch with only two parameters, a complete output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, default behavior, and return fields. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds meaningful nuance for application_id ('omit to inspect the authenticated bot's application'), but emoji_id semantics are fully covered by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single application emoji.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from app_emojis list/create/modify/delete by focusing on single-resource retrieval, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with.

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 'When to use' section gives concrete use cases: verify an app emoji exists and inspect name/animated flag. It also clarifies the optional application_id behavior. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it versus alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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