按包名查询应用 ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful constraints (max 50 names) and the fact that the result is an appId, but it does not describe response shape, ordering, error behavior, or how open-world results should be interpreted.

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 sentence with no filler: it front-loads the input constraint and states the output. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool, the description covers what is consumed and what is produced at a sufficient level. It could be more explicit about how multiple package names map to returned appIds, but the low complexity and readOnly/openWorld annotations make the current description reasonably 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 already documents packageNames with comma-separated format and an example, so the baseline is high. The description adds the meaningful max-50 bound that is not present in the schema, which helps an agent correctly size the input before calling the tool.

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 names the exact operation and resource: query AGC app ID from package names, with the specific limit of 50 comma-separated names. It is clearly a package-name-to-appId lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like agc_list_apps or agc_get_app_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The only context is the operation itself; no alternative tool is named or excluded.

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