get_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response is PII-masked, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or address authentication/rate limits. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 of 6 words, no wasted words. It conveys the key purpose and the notable PII-masking feature concisely.

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 tool with 1 parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return content but lacks guidance on parameter semantics and error cases. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 0% (no parameter description in the description). The single parameter app_id is not explained beyond its name and type. With low coverage, the description should add meaning (e.g., how to obtain app_id), but it does not, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one app', and specifies what is returned (manifest, tools with action_type, PII-masked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apps (which lists all apps) and run_read_tool (which runs a tool).

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: when you need details of a specific app by app_id. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., list_apps), nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use.

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