github_apps_get_installation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation (get) but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific authentication, or has rate limits. The minimal description fails to convey important behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning a top score for efficiency.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the installation object represents or that the result pertains to the authenticated app. For a get operation, the context is partially complete but could benefit from a brief note on return value.

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 input schema has 100% coverage (1 parameter with description). However, the description for the parameter is just a tautology ('installation_id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or source of the ID. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, but no added value.

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 'Get an installation for the authenticated app' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (installation for the authenticated app). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_org_installation' and 'get_repo_installation' by specifying 'authenticated app'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not mention that it requires prior authentication or that the installation ID must correspond to an installation of the authenticated app. Without usage context, an agent might confuse it with installation lookup by org or repo.

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