apps__get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: the HTTP method/path and the default fields (bundle ID, SKU, primary locale) included in the response. It does not describe rate limits or auth, but these are not critical for a simple read. No contradiction with 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 one concise sentence plus the endpoint, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy and is immediately scannable, making it an ideal length for a simple get tool.

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 with 3 well-documented parameters and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It states the endpoint, the action, and the key fields returned. Since there is no output schema, the mention of included fields helps set expectations. However, it doesn't describe how the include/fields_apps parameters affect the response shape, though that is covered in the schema. Overall, adequate but with a tiny gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value beyond the schema: the mention of default fields (bundle ID, SKU, primary locale) provides slight extra meaning, but the schema already thoroughly documents id, include, and fields_apps with detailed descriptions. No significant semantic enrichment.

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 action ('Read one app by ID') and the specific resource (app), distinguishing it from the sibling apps__list (which lists apps) and other relationship getters. It also mentions key attributes returned (bundle ID, SKU, primary locale), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 use when you have an app ID and need single-app details. The parameter description for 'id' explicitly says 'ID from the matching list call,' providing a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state exclusions, though the context of the sibling tool names and the simple GET semantics make this mostly clear.

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