Get K4G Application Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false? Actually readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by documenting the exact error message for a missing ID, the return format (JSON full application record including notes array), and the prerequisite to search first. This exceeds what the annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Error Handling. The first sentence front-loads the tool's core purpose, and every section provides useful information without filler.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description fully covers parameter usage, return shape, error behavior, and how to find the correct ID. The annotations cover safety, and the description is complete enough to use without additional context.

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%, and the schema already describes the id parameter with an example and minLength. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema, so it adds minimal new semantic value beyond the structured field.

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 'Fetch full detail for a single application by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions including reviewer notes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like k4g_search_applications, k4g_list_pending_review, and k4g_flag_for_review.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (fetch detail for a single application by ID) and explicitly directs users to k4g_search_applications first if they need the correct ID. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it relative to all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient.

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