whodb_platform_app_views

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 real behavioral fact — workspace {host, org, project} applies per-call 'without changing defaults' — but omits pagination, result-size limits, and what happens when the app ID does not resolve.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the chaining hint, then the workspace scoping note. No filler. It does restate the title's first two clauses and lightly echoes the workspace schema text, costing a point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies purpose, a follow-on tool, and per-call workspace semantics — enough to call it correctly, though the missing sibling differentiation (whodb_platform_app_view) is a real gap for tool selection.

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 13 parameters, so the schema carries parameter documentation and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds only 'by ID or exact name' for the app parameter, which the schema already states; nothing new about env, actions, or workspace precedence.

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 ('List pages in a hosted app by ID or exact name'), which usefully disambiguates the vague tool name 'app_views'. The one-required-param scope is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling whodb_platform_app_view, leaving the agent to guess which of the two to call.

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?

Offers a downstream workflow cue ('Use a returned page with whodb_platform_app_screenshot'), which is genuine usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to prefer this over whodb_platform_app_view, whodb_platform_app, or whodb_platform_app_page_files, and no exclusions.

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