get_spark_application_status

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

With no annotations, the description accurately conveys that this is a read-only retrieval tool by using 'Get detailed status' and listing return fields. However, it does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions, but the read nature is clear.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose and providing details in a clean format. It is appropriately concise without unnecessary information.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the return value fields and parameter meanings. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's input and output without additional context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'engine_id: Spark engine identifier' and 'application_id: Application identifier', adding context beyond the raw property names.

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 explicitly states 'Get detailed status of a Spark application', using a strong verb and specifying the resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spark_applications (which lists all) and submit_spark_application (which creates).

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 such as list_spark_applications for listing or explain_query for analysis. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context hints beyond the basic purpose.

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