get_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is unauthenticated and requires public listing, both key behavioral traits. It lists the exact return fields (id, name, description, owner, external URL, permissions, subscribed events, installation count), which far exceeds a typical description. It does not mention error scenarios (e.g., 404 for non-public apps) but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 appropriately sized for a simple GET tool. It front-loads the purpose, then provides return fields, prerequisites, and a slug definition. The slug definition slightly duplicates the schema, but each sentence has informational value. The docs URL is a bonus. It could be trimmed but is not bloated.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool returns, the authentication requirement, the public-listing constraint, and how to identify the app. The absence of an output schema is compensated by listing the response fields. It does not discuss pagination or common errors, but these are less critical for this simple metadata fetch.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter app_slug has a thorough description with an example. The description repeats the slug definition and adds the URL pattern, but this is largely redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get public metadata for a GitHub App by its URL slug.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings (get_repository, get_org, get_user, etc.) by focusing specifically on GitHub Apps. The slug-based identification is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context: it notes that authentication is not required and that the app must be publicly listed. This implies when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is unique enough that no alternative tool would compete. The docs link adds further guidance.

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