app_infos__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint (GET /v1/appInfos/{id}) and the 'Read' verb, which align with the annotations but do not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the key action, followed by the endpoint. It contains no unnecessary wording and communicates the essential purpose efficiently.

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 operation with good annotations and full schema parameter descriptions, the description is adequate. It omits return value details, but no output schema exists and the tool's scope is narrow. The endpoint adds context, and the schema already clarifies relationship inclusion. Minor gap: no mention of when to use include/fields, but those are explained in the schema.

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%, with detailed descriptions for id, include, and fields_appInfos. The description itself does not add parameter details but reinforces the 'by ID' concept. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers parameter meaning effectively.

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 info by ID', which specifies the action (read), the resource (app info), and the method (by ID). This distinguishes it from write operations like app_infos__update and from relationship-specific reads like app_infos__primary_category__get.

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 for fetching a single app info by ID, and the schema hints at obtaining the ID from a list call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like apps__app_infos__list, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is mostly implicit.

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