public-to-aso

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the multi-step process (loads, converts, saves, copies, validates), file system operations (saves to .aso/pushData/products/[slug]/store/), validation behavior (fails if over limits), and that it 'prepares data for pushing to stores without actually uploading' (indicating it's a preparation tool, not an upload tool). It doesn't mention error handling or performance characteristics, but covers the essential workflow.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (IMPORTANT warning, numbered steps, and final notes). Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by combining some related points. The front-loaded IMPORTANT section effectively highlights critical usage information.

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?

Given the complexity (multi-step data transformation tool with file operations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about the workflow, prerequisites, and behavioral outcomes. It explains what the tool does, how to use it correctly, and what happens during execution. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error responses, but otherwise it's quite complete for a preparation tool.

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 schema already documents both parameters (slug and dryRun). The description adds some context about the slug parameter ('The user may provide an approximate name, bundleId, or packageName - search-app will find and return the correct slug'), but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for dryRun or detailed slug format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('prepares', 'loads', 'converts', 'saves', 'copies/downloads', 'validates') and resources ('ASO data', 'public/products/[slug]/', 'pushData format'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on data preparation from public to ASO format, unlike 'aso-to-public' which goes the opposite direction or 'validate-aso' which only validates.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Always use 'search-app' tool first to resolve the exact slug before calling this tool.' It also specifies when not to use it: 'Never pass user input directly as slug.' This clearly distinguishes it from alternatives and establishes prerequisites.

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