get_application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of returned data (metadata, accounts, clusters) and framing the tool as a pre-mutation inspection step, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown applications.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and why to call it. Slight redundancy: 'accounts, clusters' appear in sentence one and again in the return-value sentence, which trims it below a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by summarizing the return payload, and all required parameters are covered. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool, missing only edge-case behavior such as a not-found application.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'application' is fully documented in the schema as the registered application name. The description adds no format, casing, or lookup nuance beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a single Spinnaker application') and enumerates the payload scope (accounts, clusters, custom attributes). The word 'single' cleanly separates it from the sibling list_applications, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit use context: inspect configuration before modifying pipelines or infrastructure. It does not name the alternative (list_applications) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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