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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it enumerates the returned content (opis, obraz/repozytorium, porty, wolumeny, zmienne z oznaczonymi sekretami, ostrzeżenia) and explicitly declares no side effects ("Nic nie uruchamia"), i.e. it does not trigger a deployment. It stops short of covering auth, rate limits or error behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the identifier and followed by the return contents plus the key negative guarantee. Every clause (fields listed, "Nic nie uruchamia") earns its place with zero 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, enumerating the fields an agent can expect. For a one-parameter read tool with no annotations this is nearly complete; only error/edge behavior is omitted.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents slug as coming from list_apps, so the description's restatement adds no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Jedna aplikacja po slug z list_apps" = one app by slug from list_apps) and its retrieval scope. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list_apps, which returns all apps rather than one.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the slug comes from (list_apps), establishing the natural call sequence, and "Nic nie uruchamia" implicitly separates it from prepare_deploy. It does not, however, state when this tool should be skipped or give explicit alternative-routing conditions.

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