whodb_platform_app_component

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 one useful behavioral note — the workspace argument applies per call 'without changing defaults' — which clarifies it does not mutate session state the way whodb_platform_session_use does. No detail on missing-name behavior or whether the lookup is case-sensitive.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the scoping caveat follows. The second sentence largely duplicates what the workspace schema description already states, which is the only small inefficiency.

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 lookup with full schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema, the essentials are present — what it retrieves, the required category source, and how to target a workspace. The one remaining gap is that 'exact usage' is never unpacked, so the agent cannot anticipate the returned shape.

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% and the nested workspace object is already fully documented, including that it is per-call only and how to discover targets. The description restates {host, org, project} and the no-default-change rule, which the schema already conveys, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 ('look up') and resource ('exact usage for one app component category'), and explicitly ties it to the plural sibling whodb_platform_app_components, so an agent can distinguish list-vs-detail without opening a schema. The phrase 'exact usage' remains a bit abstract about what is actually returned, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Referencing the sibling as the source of the category implies a list-then-detail workflow, which is genuine implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over whodb_platform_app_sdk, whodb_platform_app_sdks, or the singular whodb_platform_app, and no note on what to do if the name is unknown.

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