read_app_state

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds only that it is an alias, with no additional behavioral context such as expected output shape, compatibility caveats, or deprecation guidance.

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 single sentence is maximally concise and front-loaded. It avoids filler, though it is so terse that it leaves important routing context unstated.

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 simple one-parameter alias with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the canonical sibling but does not explain why or when the alias should be preferred or avoided, which is the main contextual gap.

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 one required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the app selector syntax. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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?

The description identifies the tool only as a compatibility alias for get_app_state; it does not state what state is read or what resource is involved. It does distinguish the tool from its canonical sibling, but the functional purpose must be inferred from get_app_state.

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?

Calling it a 'compatibility alias' implies it should normally be avoided in favor of get_app_state, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus the canonical one. 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.