Get app info

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

With readOnlyHint=true already marking this as a safe read, the description adds useful context by enumerating the fields returned (version, SDK, path, PID). This goes beyond the annotation, though it does not cover edge cases like behavior when the app is not installed or not running.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key output fields. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of schema 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?

For a simple read-only query tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource (installed-app info), the scope (device), and the specific data returned. Combined with the annotation and schema coverage, no further context is needed.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (appId and serial) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning or syntax details, so it meets the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 gets installed-app info and lists the specific fields (version, target/min SDK, install path, running PID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_id or install_app by focusing on comprehensive info retrieval rather than just the ID or installation operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that get_app_id is a more targeted sibling or explain when this broader info is needed. The usage context is only implied by the description's content.

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