get_rum_application

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 states the tool retrieves a RUM application by ID but doesn't describe what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error response), whether authentication is required, rate limits, or the format of the returned data. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get the RUM application') and includes the key constraint ('with given ID in your organization'), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but functional. However, it lacks context about error handling, authentication needs, or what 'given ID' means (e.g., where it comes from). For a tool that likely interacts with organizational data, more behavioral context would be helpful despite the low complexity.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, making it adequate in this dimension. However, it could hint at how the ID is provided (e.g., via context or implicit input), but this is minor.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('RUM application with given ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_rum_applications' (plural) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', which might retrieve multiple applications or aggregated data instead of a single one by ID.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid RUM application ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_rum_applications' (which might list all applications) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics' (which might provide analytics data).

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