qui_get_application_info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by explaining the argument passing convention (path variables, query in params, body in body). However, it doesn't disclose any other behavioral traits such as error handling, required authentication, or return structure beyond what output schema provides.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the endpoint, and every word adds value. No filler or unnecessary repetition; it efficiently conveys the purpose and the argument structure.

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 GET with a read-only annotation and output schema, the description covers the essential calling convention. However, it omits what application info is returned and doesn't distinguish this tool from the closely related 'qui_get_instance_app_info', leaving a gap in contextual understanding. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 schema is extremely vague (just an open 'arguments' object with additionalProperties), so the description carries the full burden for parameter understanding. It clearly maps arguments to HTTP components: path variables directly, query values in 'params', and a JSON body in 'body'. This is essential and fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 identifies the resource ('GET /application/info endpoint') and the action ('Call'), making it distinct from other tools. However, it doesn't explain what 'application info' contains or differentiate it from the similar sibling 'qui_get_instance_app_info', so it's slightly incomplete.

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 only explains how to structure arguments (path, query, body), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Notably, it doesn't mention that 'qui_get_instance_app_info' might be more appropriate for instance-specific information, so no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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