App HTML (internal)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (raw HTML, trust tier, capability grants) and marks it as internal, which helps the agent understand its intended scope.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the routing guidance to get_app is placed second.

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, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, internal status, return contents, and the appropriate alternative, leaving nothing critical missing.

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 single required parameter 'name' has no schema description, and the description does not explicitly define it as the app name. However, the tool name and the phrase 'app HTML' make it inferable that 'name' identifies the target app, providing just enough semantic grounding.

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 states a specific action and resource: it returns raw app HTML plus trust tier and capability grants for the universal loader widget. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_app, making the tool's purpose 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 explicitly says this tool is 'Not useful to call directly' and tells the agent to 'use get_app to read source.' This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance and names the correct alternative.

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