get_app_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by stating it 'gets' details, and enumerates the returned data clearly. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects), but the nature of the tool suggests non-destructive retrieval. Overall, it is transparent about what the tool provides.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the returned data. It is efficient with no unnecessary words. However, the list makes it somewhat dense; breaking it into multiple sentences could improve readability, but it remains concise for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

The tool has a simple input (one parameter from a previous launch) and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers what the agent can expect as output (versions, paths, window list with properties). Given the simplicity and the sibling context, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand usage and results.

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% (sessionId is fully described in schema), so baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not repeat or elaborate on the parameter, but that is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the tool returns Electron app details from the main process, listing specific data: Electron/Chromium/Node versions, app name/version, standard paths (userData etc.), and list of BrowserWindows with title, URL, and bounds. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools that target different aspects (e.g., DOM snapshots, process metrics, console logs).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what it does, lacking context about prerequisites, when it is appropriate, or when another tool might be better.

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