get_app_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly conveys a read-only inspection action ('Get') and lists the data it returns, plus an Android-only constraint. It does not mention output format or failure behavior, but those are secondary for a non-destructive info tool.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the most important scope constraint ('Android only') and the return fields front-loaded. Every word adds 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?

The description tells the caller what data will be returned and the platform constraint, and all three parameters are required. However, it omits any description of deviceId and the exact output shape, and with no output schema or annotations this leaves some ambiguity for a first-time agent.

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 only 33%: only packageId has a description. The description adds 'Android only', which helps clarify the platform parameter, but it does not explain deviceId at all and adds nothing about packageId beyond the schema example. For a low-coverage schema the description should compensate more.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('app info') and enumerates the exact returned fields: version, install date, SDK target, data directory, and permissions. The 'Android only' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from iOS-oriented or generic device-inspection siblings.

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 gives a clear context: use when you need metadata about an installed Android app. It also provides an exclusion ('Android only'), implying this tool is not for iOS. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other cases, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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