quest_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. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the listed fields imply no side effects. However, it does not mention prerequisites like device connectivity or potential performance implications, which are minor gaps for a getter tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key details with no fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and output, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description lists the expected output fields, which is helpful, but it fails to explain the parameters' semantics or any conditions for use. Given the small complexity, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement, especially regarding 'device_id' and device prerequisites.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The required 'package_name' is inferable from the tool name, but the optional 'device_id' is left unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the schema, which already lists the parameter names and types.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('app details'), listing concrete fields (version, dates, SDK, permissions, data size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_app_list (lists apps) and quest_app_memory (memory 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?

The description implies usage when detailed app information is needed rather than just a list of apps, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for use. No comparison to sibling tools is provided, so it offers only implicit guidance.

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