export_app_store_state

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description adds useful behavioral context: it refuses overwrite, does not export review secrets/notes, and clarifies that screenshot inventory is not original image bytes. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand side effects and limitations.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct information: the core action, the overwrite refusal, and the exclusions/limitations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and keeps caveats concise. No wasted words, though the third sentence about screenshot inventory could be clearer.

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 there is no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain more about what the export produces, how the destination is validated, and what 'approved' means. It covers key exclusions and the overwrite behavior, but an agent may still be uncertain about the output format and the exact meaning of 'fresh approved local directory'.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It mentions 'destination' implicitly as the local directory and 'appStoreId'/'bundleId'/'platform' as identifiers of Apple state, but it does not explain the 'version' parameter or provide format details beyond the schema patterns. The description adds some context but leaves several parameters under-explained.

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 states a specific verb ('Read' and 'export') and resource ('Apple state'), and distinguishes itself by noting it exports into a 'fresh approved local directory' and refuses overwrite. It is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like get_app_store_state, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context: it is for exporting Apple state to a local directory, and it warns about overwrite refusal and exclusions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_app_store_state or prepare_app_record, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an approved directory.

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