apps_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the side effect of opening a fresh edit, which is crucial, but does not explain that edits need to be committed later or whether it overwrites existing edits. The return value is described but lacks detail on the resource structure.

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 sentence, concise and to the point, with no redundant words.

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?

Given the complexity of the Google Play Console API with many siblings, the description covers the essential information: the side effect (open edit), the return details, and the parameter. However, it could be more complete by explaining the edit lifecycle or differentiating from 'details_get'.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for 'packageName'. The description adds 'for one app' which is already implied. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 it opens a fresh edit and returns the details resource for one app, specifying the fields (contact email/phone/website + default language). It distinguishes from sibling 'apps_list' which would list apps without an edit context.

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 implies the tool is for getting app details within a new edit, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'details_get' which might serve a similar purpose without creating an edit.

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