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. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, require any specific permissions, or mention rate limits. The absence of side-effect warnings is acceptable for a simple GET, but a more explicit statement about read-only nature would strengthen transparency. It is adequate but not explicit.

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 that is front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch one app's full attributes') and immediately clarifies the key parameter. There is zero redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 read operation with an output schema provided, the description is complete. It specifies what is fetched and by what identifier. No additional behavioral context (like pagination or filters) is needed, as this is a targeted fetch. The presence of an output schema covers return-value documentation.

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%, but the description explains that app_id is the App Store Connect app id, which gives meaningful context beyond the bare schema definition (type: string). Since there is only one parameter and the description clarifies its role, it compensates well for the lack of schema-level documentation. However, it does not specify format constraints (e.g., numeric vs alphanumeric), so a small gap remains.

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 'Fetch', the resource 'one app's full attributes', and the identifier 'App Store Connect app id'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_apps (which lists many) and find_app_by_bundle_id (which uses a different identifier). No ambiguity remains about what this tool does.

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 have a specific App Store Connect app id and need the full attribute set, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. There is no direct guidance on choosing between this and find_app_by_bundle_id, though the identifier difference is implied. It is adequate but relies on the agent to infer context.

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