app_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are not cached by hosts (unlike resources/read) and reflect changes immediately after restart_server. This is useful operational context not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded before the caching caveat. No wasted text, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts flow.

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-only tool with an output format implicitly being HTML, the description covers purpose and caching behavior adequately. However, with no output schema and an undocumented uri parameter at 0% coverage, the agent lacks the information needed to supply a valid uri.

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 single 'uri' parameter has 0% schema coverage and the description provides no format, example, or enumeration as to which page URIs are valid. 'One of this server's app pages' gives only a vague domain hint and does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific resource ('HTML of one of this server's app pages') and clarifies its role ('the workspace loads its views with this'). It distinguishes itself somewhat from resources/read by contrasting caching behavior, though it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools.

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 caching contrast with resources/read implies a reason to prefer this tool for live views that must reflect changes after restart_server, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Usage is left to inference.

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