sysknife_get_flatpak_app_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' prefix is largely redundant. The one piece of added context is that the target must already be installed (no remote lookups), but nothing is said about what happens for a non-installed app_id or what the metadata payload contains.

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?

A single compact line that front-loads the action and the resource, then the parameters. The internal code-name 'GetFlatpakAppInfo' is mildly redundant with the tool name but costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what 'metadata' means (version, runtime, origin, permissions), since that determines whether an agent calls this or list_installed_flatpaks. It also leaves the mismatch between the declared params and the empty schema unexplained, so an agent must guess how to pass arguments.

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 is an empty object with additionalProperties=true, so the description is the only place that names the two real arguments `username*` and `app_id*` and marks both required. That is genuinely additive, though it gives no format hints (e.g. reverse-DNS app id form) or scope constraints on username.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'show metadata for an installed Flatpak', with the underlying action name GetFlatpakAppInfo. The word 'installed' distinguishes it from siblings like sysknife_search_flatpak_apps and sysknife_list_flatpak_remotes, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 is only implied: 'for an installed Flatpak' plus a required app_id signals this is a per-app lookup rather than a listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_installed_flatpaks or search_flatpak_apps, and no stated prerequisites or failure cases.

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