Get application

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with. The description adds behavioral context: returns all fields, contacts, timeline events, and an analysis flag. It also hints at related operations (fetch via dashboard, attach_analysis) but does not contradict annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key data inclusions. No wasted words; essential details are front-loaded.

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 getter with one parameter, the description covers the return content adequately. It provides actionable context (e.g., analysis attachment hint). Missing error/edge cases but sufficient for typical use.

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 only parameter (id, uuid) is implied by context ('one application') but not explicitly described. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should add meaning, but it only indirectly indicates identification. It does not explain format or constraints beyond schema.

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 full detail of one application, specifying included data: fields, contacts, recent timeline events, and analysis attachment status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_applications (list vs single) and get_planned (different resource).

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 implies use when detailed view of a single application is needed. It mentions alternatives for further actions (e.g., 'fetch it via the dashboard or attach_analysis to replace'), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare directly to siblings.

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