Get application id

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a small behavioral detail (parsing from build.gradle) but does not disclose potential failure modes, return value structure, or other traits beyond what the annotation implies.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a brief usage note. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 is simple with no output schema and safe read-only annotations. The description covers purpose, method, and usage context, while the schema handles parameters. It is adequately complete for the tool's complexity, missing only explicit return-value details which are implied.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description does not add any additional detail about parameters, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 ('the applicationId (package name) of a module'). It also explains the method ('parsed from its build.gradle(.kts)') and distinguishes it from siblings like get_app_info by focusing on the package name specifically.

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 provides clear context by noting it is 'Needed by install/launch/log tools,' implying when to use it as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not scenarios, so it stops short of the highest rating.

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