panelica_node_js_apps_get_v1_nodejs_apps_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required scope 'apps:read' and confirms HTTPS method GET, which provides useful authentication context beyond the annotations. It repeats 'Read-only' but that is a minor redundancy.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. Every line earns its place: HTTP path, category, required scope, and read-only indicator. There is no fluff or redundant prose.

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 simple read-only GET with one parameter, the description covers the essential invocation details: path, scope, and safety. It does not describe the response payload, but with no output schema and no nested objects, this omission is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the only parameter 'id' is described as a path parameter. The description's HTTP line repeats ':id' but adds no additional format, type, or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for complete schema 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Node.js app'), and the HTTP path '/v1/nodejs/apps/:id' makes clear it retrieves a single app by ID. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like the list endpoint or logs/stats, but the resource and path are specific enough to infer the primary purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getting all Node.js apps, logs, or stats. Usage is only implied by the path and the word 'Get' — there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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