app_clips__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint path, which is consistent with annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as error handling or response structure, beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, including the HTTP method and path. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it could be slightly more informative without being verbose, it wastes no words and is efficiently structured.

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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, few parameters, well-covered by annotations and schema), the description is adequate. However, considering the large number of sibling tools, a mention of the response structure or typical use case would improve completeness. It minimally satisfies the needs for a read tool.

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 both parameters described: 'Resource identifier' for id and 'comma-separated list of relationships to include' for include. The description does not add any extra meaning or context beyond what the input schema already provides, so a baseline score 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 'Read one App Clip by ID', specifying the verb (read), resource (App Clip), and the method of identification (by ID). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like app_clips__app_clip_advanced_experiences__list or app_clips__app_clip_default_experiences__list, which are also single-read or list operations on related resources.

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 usage when you have an App Clip ID and need the full object, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like app_clips__app_clip_advanced_experiences__list or app_clips__app_clip_default_experiences__list for related data. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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