apps__ci_product__get

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral disclosures such as rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects, but it does consistently describe a read operation without contradicting the annotations.

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, focused sentence with the endpoint path as a helpful supplement. It contains no filler or repetition, and every element serves a purpose.

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 GET with two well-documented parameters and safe annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly names the resource and operation, though there is no output schema and no explicit description of the response shape; still, the read semantics make the return value self-evident.

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% and both parameters have descriptive text in the schema: 'id' is explained as coming from a matching list call, and 'include' details relationship handling and extra call costs. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('Xcode Cloud product for an app'), with an endpoint path that reinforces the scope. It distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools by naming a unique resource ('ciProduct').

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention related tools or conditions that would make this the right call, and the 'ID from the matching list call' hint is confined to the parameter schema, not the tool description.

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