get_scoped_app

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent with the description's 'Get full details'. The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, nor does it contradict them. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and input requirements. No extraneous information or repetition of structured fields.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and input. However, it lacks information about return behavior (e.g., whether 'full details' includes all fields) and error scenarios (e.g., what happens if the ID is not found).

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 has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'App sys_id or scope name'. The description adds a concrete example ('x_myco_myapp') that clarifies the expected format, providing value beyond the schema's own description.

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 action ('Get full details'), the resource ('scoped application'), and the identification methods ('by sys_id or scope name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_scoped_apps' and 'create_scoped_app' by specifying it retrieves one specific app by ID or 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 alternatives, such as when to use 'get_scoped_app' over 'search_scoped_app' or 'list_scoped_apps'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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