get_app

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 but only states the basic action ('Get app information'). It doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors—critical gaps for a tool with potential data access.

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 extremely concise ('Get app information'), consisting of three words with no wasted text. However, it's overly brief to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite efficient phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns app details. It doesn't explain what 'app information' includes (e.g., metadata, configuration), how results are structured, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The app ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details, but the schema adequately covers the parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 app information' restates the tool name 'get_app' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('app') but lacks a clear, specific verb beyond 'get' and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_apps' (which likely lists multiple apps).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_apps' (for listing apps) or 'get_record' (for generic records). The description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.

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