aso-pull

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'save to local cache' and implies data fetching, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, cache behavior (e.g., overwrite or merge), or what 'fetch ASO data' entails (e.g., metadata, rankings). This is inadequate for a tool with potential external API calls and local storage.

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 that front-loads the core action ('fetch ASO data') and includes key details (sources and cache saving). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 of fetching from external stores and saving locally, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'ASO data' includes, the format of saved data, success/error responses, or dependencies on other tools like 'apps-init'. This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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%, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'app', 'packageName', or 'bundleId' identify the target, and 'dryRun' affects saving. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('fetch ASO data') and the target resources ('App Store/Google Play'), and mentions saving to local cache. It distinguishes from siblings like 'aso-push' (which likely pushes data) and 'apps-init' (which registers apps). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'release-pull-notes' or other data-fetching tools, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing registered apps via 'apps-init'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'apps-search' or 'release-pull-notes'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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