apps-add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Register' (implying a write operation) and 'checks both stores', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether registration is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 this is a mutation tool ('Register') with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full behavior.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'bundleId or packageName' (implied by the schema's description for 'identifier') and 'checks both stores' (implied by the 'store' parameter's enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Register') and resource ('individual app'), specifying it works by 'bundleId or packageName' and 'checks both stores'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apps-init' or 'apps-search', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apps-init' (which might initialize multiple apps) or 'apps-search' (which might search for apps). It mentions 'Automatically checks both stores' but doesn't clarify if this is unique to this tool or a general feature.

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