get_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details,' which inherently implies a read-only operation, but it adds no context about permissions, error handling, or response format. The description does not go beyond what the tool name already implies.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler words and efficiently conveys the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 get operation, the description provides the essential elements: action, resource, and identifier. It does not specify what 'details' are included in the response, but given no output schema and the straightforward nature of a get, the description is largely sufficient. A slightly richer mention of return content would improve completeness.

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?

The schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'appId' has a description. The tool description rephrases the schema's 'App Store Connect app ID' as 'App Store Connect ID,' adding no new meaning. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to get details for a specific app using its App Store Connect ID. The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource 'app' is named, and the identifier is identified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build, get_iap, or list_apps.

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 implies usage when the agent possesses an App Store Connect ID and needs details for one app. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or recommend list_apps for discovery. There is no direct comparison with alternatives, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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