get_application_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error responses. It only vaguely mentions the return type and includes a long workflow irrelevant to the tool's own 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?

The description is overly long, including an entire credential configuration workflow and data validation requirements that are not directly about the tool itself. The first sentence is concise, but the rest is wasteful and should be in separate documentation.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description adds a workflow and validation notes, but it still lacks details about the return structure beyond 'Dict containing application details and supported credential types.' It is adequate for a simple get tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 parameter (tag_name) is described as 'The app tag name for retrieving application information,' adding meaning beyond the schema which only specifies type string. This is sufficient given the low schema coverage (0%).

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 function: 'Get detailed information about an application, including supported credential types.' It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (application information), and is distinct from sibling tools like fetch_applications or get_applications_for_tag.

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 a detailed step-by-step workflow for configuring application credentials, explicitly stating when to call this tool (step 2). However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for similar tasks.

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