Get App Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it reports only what the backend knows, keeping unknown fields explicit instead of inferring them. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent understand the tool's conservative reporting behavior.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second details the key behavior, and the 'unknown fields remain explicit' clause adds a valuable nuance without extra words. Every sentence 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?

With a clear read-only purpose, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs: what it reports and how it handles unknowns. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation guidance, but the tool's scope is sufficiently clear for correct invocation.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond that, but it does not need to compensate for any gaps; the baseline score 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Inspect'), resource ('app inventory record'), and the exact statuses it reports (installed, enabled, launchable). The phrase 'used for resolution and launch planning' differentiates it from siblings like mobile_list_apps or mobile_launch_app, and the note about unknown fields remaining explicit further sharpens the scope.

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 a use case ('used for resolution and launch planning') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like mobile_resolve_app or mobile_get_foreground_app. It gives context but no exclusions or direct sibling comparisons, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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