get_app_details

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 discloses the return format ('JSON string with app name, API key, and GID') and the input format, but does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, though 'Get' implies it. This is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves some gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose summary followed by explicit Args and Returns sections. Every sentence contributes valuable information without any filler, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick understanding.

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 low complexity (single required parameter, simple read operation) and the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description is nearly complete. It specifies the input format, the output fields, and the scope ('specific app'). It could mention error behavior or permissions, but these are less critical for a simple get-by-id 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?

The input schema only defines app_id as a string with no description, but the Args section in the description fully compensates by explaining it accepts either a GID (with a concrete example) or a numeric ID. This adds meaning far beyond the schema and makes the parameter's format and valid values clear.

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 it retrieves details for a specific Shopify app, using the verb 'Get' and a distinct resource ('details for a specific Shopify app'). The listed return fields (app name, API key, GID) differentiate this from sibling aggregate/comparison tools like get_app_comparison or get_app_events, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'specific Shopify app' (use when you need details for one app), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, so the guidance is only implied.

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