get_app_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It tells the agent the tool returns status across all listed application types, which is useful scope information. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is non-mutating, the exact meaning of 'status', or any authorization or aggregation behavior beyond the tool name and scope.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds a clear usage intent. Every clause 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?

For a tool with only one optional schema-covered parameter, the description is mostly complete for selecting the call. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not define what status data is returned, and it could benefit from a note distinguishing it from the many similar status/health siblings in the tool list.

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 already 100%, and the single parameter has an enum with descriptions including the default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete verb plus resource: 'Get status of all MoleCare applications' and enumerates the app types covered. It is clear at a glance, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling aggregate tools like get_all_apps_status or get_system_health, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this to check overall system health.' This gives clear intended context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it misses the highest level of usage guidance.

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