build_bundles__app_clip_domain_debug_status__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 merely restates the read-only nature without adding extra behavioral context like authentication requirements, rate limits, or relationship to cache status. 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 a single concise sentence with the endpoint included for reference. It contains a minor typo ('statu') but no unnecessary words or redundancy, making it efficient and well-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?

For a simple one-parameter read operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequately complete. It does not elaborate on return format or differentiate from a similar sibling, but the provided information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with the parameter 'id' described as 'ID from the matching list call.' The description adds no parameter-level information beyond this, so the schema carries the full burden, which it does adequately.

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) and the specific resource (App Clip domain debug status for a build bundle), making the purpose obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish from the similar sibling 'build_bundles__app_clip_domain_cache_status__get', but the resource name itself differentiates sufficiently.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the cache status sibling, or any prerequisites beyond the id. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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