Get application

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses two valuable behaviors: it returns candidates when the identifier is ambiguous, and it never returns secrets (webhook secrets, basic-auth passwords, compose files). This gives the agent important expectations about outputs and error handling that annotations alone do not provide.

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 and economically packed. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by input flexibility and the critical secrets exclusion. No filler or repetition of annotation data is present, earning a top score.

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 listing the returned detail categories and explicitly noting what will never be returned. It also covers identifier resolution and ambiguous-case errors, which are the main non-obvious behaviors. For a single-resource get, nothing essential 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?

The input schema already fully describes the parameter with 100% coverage ('Application uuid, exact name, or a unique part of its name or domain'). The description repeats the same semantics and adds the ambiguity-related error behavior, but that is behavioral transparency, not parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one application's details', then enumerates the exact fields returned (domains, status, git, build/start commands, ports, health check, limits, project/environment). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_applications and get_application_logs, leaving no ambiguity about its scope.

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 intended use case is clear: when you need a single application's full configuration. It also explains the accepted input formats and the ambiguity error behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like list_applications or get_deployment, though the 'one application' framing implies when to use it.

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