whodb_platform_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that workspace targeting is per-call and leaves session defaults untouched, which is meaningful behavioral context, but it says nothing about what the 'generated definition' contains or how the detail/files/version views differ.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the workspace note. The second sentence is arguably the weaker half since it duplicates schema content, but nothing is padded.

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-required-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the main case adequately and correctly points at the workspace/session-default resolution chain. It leaves gaps around the multiple view modes hinted at in the id parameter ('detail, files, or version view') and the optional 'fields' output projection, which the description never mentions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter including the nested workspace object is documented in the schema itself. The description's workspace sentence largely restates the schema's own workspace description ('Optional target for this call only. Omit to use the session default...'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect one hosted app, including its generated definition.' This clearly separates it from the plural listing sibling whodb_platform_apps. It does not distinguish it from near-neighbors like whodb_platform_app_view, whodb_platform_app_version_view, or whodb_platform_app_files, which the schema's 'detail, files, or version view' phrasing suggests overlap 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 second sentence explains per-call workspace targeting, which is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given, and no sibling (e.g. apps for listing, app_version_view for version history) is named as an alternative, so usage is only implied by the verb 'Inspect one'.

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