sd_get_application_info

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already declare this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying precisely what data is read (version, Python, platform, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clearer behavioral picture.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all key data categories without filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless read tool.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description only needs to convey what the tool returns. It does so by listing the data categories, making it complete for this simple read operation. No additional context is necessary.

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 tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The input schema is empty (100% coverage), and the description naturally cannot add parameter details. A score of 4 aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and enumerates a clear list of resources (version, Python, platform, open packages, graph, capabilities), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sd_get_capabilities or sd_get_active_graph, which target narrower subsets.

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 the tool is for reading overall application info, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., sd_get_capabilities) might be more appropriate for specific needs.

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