get-application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves detailed information including status, configuration, and deployment details, which adds behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid UUID), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specifics on what information is included. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks an output schema, so it should ideally hint at the return structure (e.g., JSON object with fields), and with no annotations, it misses safety or performance details. It covers the basics but could be more comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'uuid' fully documented as 'Resource UUID'. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the UUID usage but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples (e.g., UUID v4) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific application', specifying it uses a UUID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-applications' by focusing on a single application rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'update-application' beyond the retrieval vs. update 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?

The description implies usage when you need detailed info for a specific application by UUID, suggesting an alternative to 'list-applications' for bulk listing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'list-deployments' for deployment-specific info) or prerequisites like needing a valid UUID. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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