Get app status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the categories of data returned, which matters especially because there is no output schema. It still does not describe return format, pagination, or authentication expectations.

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 front-loaded sentence that begins with the purpose and then efficiently enumerates the data categories. Every listed item earns its place by clarifying the scope of the overview.

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 aggregate tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented single parameter, the description gives enough context about what will be returned. It could be slightly more complete by hinting at output structure or how to interpret the states, but no critical information is missing.

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?

There is a single optional 'app' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the default fallback behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: a one-call overview of an app covering versions, builds, TestFlight states, processing uploads, and open submissions. It clearly distinguishes itself as an aggregate status tool, though it does not explicitly name granular siblings like list_apps or list_builds.

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 phrase 'One-call overview' implies the tool should be used when an agent wants a combined snapshot rather than multiple list/get calls. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative to route to for narrower queries.

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