get_scoped_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Get full details' is consistent with these. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the basic purpose, such as response size, field set, or potential limitations, making it adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only getter with one well-documented parameter, the description is largely sufficient. However, 'full details' is vague and there is no output schema, so an agent cannot know exactly which fields will be returned; still, the tool's simplicity and clear parameter reduce the need for more.

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's sole parameter 'id' already has a clear description ('App sys_id or scope name (e.g. "x_myco_myapp")'). The tool description repeats this information without adding further detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without augmenting 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a scoped application's full details using either a sys_id or scope name. This specific verb+resource+lookup-method combination distinguishes it from siblings like list_scoped_apps, create_scoped_app, and update_scoped_app.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_scoped_apps for discovery. The need for an identifier (sys_id or scope name) is implied, but the description does not contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions.

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