cf_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about what details are returned, whether authentication or a prior cf_target is required, or how a missing app is handled.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than being maximally informative.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description need not enumerate return values, and the schema covers the parameter. Still, with no annotations, it leaves the agent without any prerequisite or safety 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 coverage is 100% for the single appName parameter, so the schema already defines its meaning. The description adds nothing beyond 'a specific application', which merely restates the parameter's intent. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific application'), and the word 'specific' implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling cf_apps. It does not, however, name cf_apps explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-list distinction.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you need details on one app rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the cf_apps alternative, and no prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether an org/space must be targeted first).

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