handle_get_app_fields

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions connecting to a server and creating session objects but does not specify if the operation is read-only, required permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. The description is acceptable but lacks key behavioral context.

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 concise with two sentences, efficiently summarizing the tool's purpose and workflow. The first sentence is slightly redundant ('MCP tool handler for...') but not overly verbose. Well-structured for quick understanding.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and full schema descriptions for parameters, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's purpose and mechanism. However, it could mention that the tool does not modify data and that the boolean parameters filter results.

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% description coverage for all parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., it does not elaborate on the boolean toggles or the app_id format). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves Qlik Sense fields and table information, specifying the exact actions (connects, opens app, creates FieldList, retrieves metadata, returns JSON). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other app components like dimensions or measures.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only describes functionality, leaving usage context implied (e.g., when field and table info is needed). No exclusion criteria 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.