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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets information, without detailing what data is returned, whether any permissions are needed, or any side effects. For a read operation, it could at least mention the kind of fields returned, but it does not.

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 seven words, immediately front-loaded with the action and object. There is no fluff or repetition, and every word earns its place.

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 get-by-id tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' means (e.g., app metadata, bundle ID, pricing). This gap leaves the return value ambiguous.

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 description coverage is 100% (appId is well described). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely indicating the app is 'specific,' which aligns with the appId parameter. Baseline 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 'Get detailed information about a specific app' clearly states a specific verb (Get), resource (detailed information about an app), and scoping (specific app). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_apps and get_build, which operate at different levels of granularity.

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 implied by the phrase 'specific app,' suggesting it is used when you need details for a particular app, as opposed to listing all apps. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over get_app_version or get_build, nor any stated exclusions.

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