pre_release_versions__app__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 well covered. The description adds the resource relationship and endpoint but no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination, errors). It is consistent with annotations, earning a baseline score.

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 sentence plus an endpoint reference. It contains zero unnecessary words and is immediately scannable.

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 single-parameter GET operation with strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies what is read (the app) and the required input. Though there is no output schema or explicit return shape, the resource type is self-evident, so the short description suffices.

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 the sole parameter ('id') has a helpful description ('ID from the matching list call.'). The description adds no further parameter detail, but with full schema coverage the 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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('the app for a pre release version'), which precisely distinguishes it from siblings like pre_release_versions__get (which reads the pre-release version itself) and builds__app__get (which reads an app for a build). The endpoint path reinforces the scope.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than explicit. The description means 'use this when you need the app object associated with a pre-release version', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the simple read nature, it is adequate but with no explicit guidance.

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