play__uygulamalar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data source (Play Developer Reporting API) and the reason (Android Publisher API has no listing endpoint), plus the auth scoping to the service account. It doesn't cover pagination or truncated-result behavior, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the usage pointer, then the caveat. No wasted text and every sentence carries distinct 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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete and even explains what the returned package names are for (feeding other tools). Minor gap: no return-format or volume expectation, though no output schema exists to carry it.

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 the single 'limit' parameter (default 50, max 1000) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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 (listeler) and resource (Google Play uygulamaları) scoped to the service account's access, which distinguishes it from the operation-specific play__ siblings. An agent immediately knows this is the discovery/enumeration tool.

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 routes usage: 'Diğer play__ araçlarının istediği paket adını (packageName) buradan al' tells the agent this is the prerequisite call for other tools. There is no alternative for listing Play apps, so no exclusion is needed, though it doesn't state a 'when not to use'.

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