get_application_managed_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It warns about token limits for large applications, which is a behavioral insight, but does not clarify read-only nature, authentication requirements, or response structure. Partial but lacking depth.

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 sentences with no wasted words: first states purpose, second advises filtering, third gives examples. Front-loaded 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?

The description is adequate for a tool with high schema coverage and a clear return purpose. However, it lacks details about response format or pagination, which would be expected for a list of resources. No output schema is provided, so description should have filled that gap 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?

Schema description coverage is high (88%), and the description adds value by explaining why filters matter (token limits) and giving concrete examples (kind, namespace). This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 returns managed resources for a given application with optional filtering, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_application and get_resources by focusing on managed resources and filtering capability.

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 explicitly advises using filters to avoid token limits with large applications, providing concrete examples. It does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the guidance is clear and practical for the primary use case.

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