faber_check_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks existence and gets details, but doesn't describe what 'details' include, whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the app doesn't exist (error vs. null response), authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects or complex behavior.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose clearly without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the key information. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error handling, or behavioral aspects. For a tool that checks existence and retrieves information, users need to know what information is returned and how failures are handled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('name' as the app username to check, 'server' as optional with default). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('Check if exists') and resource ('app on Faber server'), and specifies the additional action of getting details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'faber_list_apps' by focusing on a specific app rather than listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'faber_get_env' or 'faber_server_status'.

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 doesn't mention when to choose this over 'faber_list_apps' for checking existence, or how it relates to tools like 'faber_get_env' or 'faber_server_status'. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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