whodb_platform_app_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds nothing beyond them: its first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the annotation title, and its second repeats the workspace semantics already in the schema. No mention of result shape, pagination, or what "generated files" means in practice.

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 sentences, no filler words, and the read scope is front-loaded before the targeting note. It is efficient, though the second sentence is low-value duplication rather than earned content.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations explain return behavior, so the description must clarify what a "view" yields (rendered output, metadata, file list?) and how id/env/version select among them. Given the dense app_* sibling cluster and a nested workspace object, the definition leaves the agent guessing.

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% across all five parameters (id, env, fields, version, workspace and its nested host/org/project), so the schema carries the full burden. The description's only parameter sentence restates the workspace object, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond what the schema already documents, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a verb ("Read") and an object ("current hosted app view and generated files"), so it is not a tautology. However, "view" is left undefined even though the sibling list contains whodb_platform_app, whodb_platform_app_views, whodb_platform_app_version_view, whodb_platform_app_files and whodb_platform_app_screenshot; an agent cannot tell which of these returns what.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus the many app-related siblings, nor any precondition such as needing an app id or a session host. The only guidance present (per-call workspace targeting) duplicates the input schema rather than adding selection logic.

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