bunny_get_mc_app

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the response contents by listing what details are returned, but it does not describe possible errors, missing-resource behavior, or any other behavioral nuance. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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, compact sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds a focused list of relevant detail categories. Every element contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 read-only get-by-id tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient. It specifies the main purpose and the categories of data returned. However, since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the response shape, not-found behavior, or how this differs from the overview tool would make it fully complete.

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 only one parameter, and the input schema already documents it fully as 'Application ID' with a required constraint. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter format, scope, or special values. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves Magic Container application details and enumerates the specific categories included (configuration, endpoints, deployment status, env vars, volumes, regions). It is not a tautology and the verb 'Retrieve' plus resource makes the purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the very similar sibling bunny_get_mc_app_overview.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bunny_list_mc_apps or bunny_get_mc_app_overview. Usage is only implied by the name and the word 'details', which is not sufficient to route an agent confidently among nearly identical sibling tools.

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