infomaniak_get_nodejs_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, establishing safe read behavior. The description adds value by enumerating the specific configuration fields returned (e.g., Node version, SSL status, disk usage) and the authentication requirement, going beyond annotations.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and lists key fields, the second adds authentication context. It is front-loaded with the purpose, concise with no extraneous words.

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 existence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description provides a good overview of what data is returned and the authentication requirement. It does not discuss error handling or pagination, but for a configuration retrieval tool this is adequate.

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%, so the input schema already describes both parameters with sufficient detail (e.g., vhost_route_id includes cross-reference to list endpoints). The description does not add any additional parameter meaning, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 states 'Get full configuration of a Node.js application' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. It lists specific fields returned (Node version, port, IPs, etc.), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like infomaniak_nodejs_app_status or infomaniak_nodejs_app_logs, though the scope 'full' implies comprehensiveness.

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 mentions 'Manager-private — requires SASESSION + CSRF cookies' which gives authentication context. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for initial retrieval after listing), nor does it explicitly indicate prerequisites like obtaining hosting_id and vhost_route_id from list endpoints, though the schema parameters provide that guidance.

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