app_get_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not state whether the app must exist, how errors are handled, what happens when the optional container parameter is omitted, or whether this requires a running simulator. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly restructured to front-load the primary purpose and include a brief note on optional output, which would make it even more effective without losing conciseness.

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 tool has 3 parameters (one optional) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., a string path), error conditions (e.g., app not found), or the implications of omitting the container parameter. For a tool that queries file system paths, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only a redundant listing of container types ('app bundle, data, or app group') already covered by the schema's 'container' parameter description. It does not clarify the default behavior when container is omitted, nor add any syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('file system path to an app's container'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like app_launch, app_install, or log_stream, which perform different operations. The explicit mention of container types (app bundle, data, or app group) adds specificity.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed on the simulator), and no conditions for when to specify the container parameter or omit it. There is no mention of exclusion cases.

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