application_get_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The simple 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not confirm this, nor does it mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The minimal description fails to provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is concise, though it arguably sacrifices completeness. Every word is functional, but the brevity leaves gaps in behavioral and contextual information.

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 tool has 3 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., application details) or clarify the optional parameters' purpose. The current description is too sparse, providing only the basic action without addressing the tool's complexity or usage 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?

The input schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions (organization_id and override_organization_id). The description 'Get Application by Id.' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high (>80%? Actually 67%, but close to threshold), the baseline is 3, and the description does not improve it.

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 'Get Application by Id.' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Application' with its identifier. It is specific and directly reflects the tool's name, distinguishing it from other get-by-id tools for different resources (e.g., action_log_get_by_id_v2). However, it does not differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like application_get_for_application_options beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate that this tool returns a single application by ID, while application_get_matching_list might be more appropriate for searches.

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