Get OAuth app

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the client secret is never returned and only exists at creation time, which prevents an agent from expecting it and explains an important output limitation.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and returned fields front-loaded, followed by purpose and then the important output caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned (name, redirect URIs, scopes) and what is excluded (client secret). For a simple single-parameter read tool with full annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single appId parameter is fully documented there, including its origin from create_oauth_app. The description only echoes 'by its app ID', adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get an OAuth App's configuration') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, redirect URIs, scopes). It is clearly distinct from the sibling create/list/delete OAuth app tools.

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?

Explicitly gives a use case ('Use this to verify an app was registered as intended'), which tells the agent the intent behind the call. However, it does not explicitly route away from siblings like tailscale_list_oauth_apps for broader discovery, so it stops short of naming alternatives.

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