Get control-app metadata

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the returned fields and mentioning 'derived control/command/model API URLs'. It also states the tool can confirm token validity. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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 two sentences plus an 'Args' and 'Returns' line. It is front-loaded with key info and contains 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. It covers input parameters and usage context. Could mention additional details like permissions but is sufficient for an agent.

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 detailed parameter descriptions. The description briefly lists 'Args: app (alias) or appToken; response_format' but adds little new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'app instance's metadata', listing specific fields such as numeric ids, name, folder, composition id, thumbnail, output URLs, and API URLs. It distinguishes from sibling tools as the only one for app metadata.

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 a specific use case: 'confirm a token points at the intended app and to grab a preview/output URL'. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like singular_get_output_urls, but the sibling list is broader and this tool's purpose is clear.

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