Get app source

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses mutilation risk, the destructive consequence of editing from a mutilated read, next_offset/total continuation semantics, node-based jumps, and version/hash expectations. This is rich, non-obvious behavior that annotations alone would not convey.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: window mechanics, safety rationale, version/hash, node behavior, and manifest behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 complex windowed-read protocol, the description covers the window mechanism, continuation, safety rationale, edit-handshake values, node targeting, and the manifest alternative. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be 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?

Schema coverage is high, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: offset/length define a selectable window, next_offset continues it, total is full length, node targets an element, slot:manifest bypasses window mechanics, and version/hash feed later edit operations. This goes far beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 verb and resource ('Read an app's ui source') and adds clear windowing mechanics plus a manifest slot alternative. It is much more specific than the title, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

It gives strong contextual guidance: windowed reads exist because oversized results may be silently mutilated, and the returned version/hash are meant for edit_app/save_app. It does not explicitly list when to use an alternative tool, but it conveys the right decision context.

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