get_app_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: the returned baseUrl is absolute and must be used verbatim, not rebuilt from the admin URL. This is a useful contract detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three focused sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, then the parameter guidance, then the baseUrl caveat. Every sentence adds useful 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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does a good job: it names the return contents, explains the ID formats, and provides a usage warning. The only notable gap is the unexplained organizationId parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description gives valuable semantics for appId: it accepts either the UUID or slug and references list_apps. However, organizationId is left completely unexplained even though the schema has 0% description coverage. Since one of the two parameters is undocumented, the description only partially compensates for the low schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the machine-readable spec of an app', and lists exactly what the spec contains (base URL, endpoints, methods, fields). It also names its purpose ('generate frontend API calls'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_apps and get_board_schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: to generate frontend API calls. It also tells the agent how to obtain a valid appId via list_apps when only the slug or UUID is known. It does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives like get_board_schema, but the context is clear enough.

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