get_app_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content ('metainfo, tables/fields list, master items, sheets and objects with used fields'), which adds useful context beyond basic retrieval. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies read). The description compensates somewhat but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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, dense sentence that efficiently covers purpose, filters, and return values. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get compact application info') and avoids redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating filtering from returns) for better readability, but it earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which is essential for understanding. However, for a tool with no output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned data (e.g., format of 'metainfo'), and with no annotations, it misses behavioral aspects like safety or constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (app_id and name) with descriptions. The description adds marginal value by noting 'case-insensitive fuzzy search by app name' and 'preferred if known' for app_id, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get compact application info' with specific filtering capabilities by 'guid or name (case-insensitive)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_apps' (likely listing apps) by focusing on detailed info for a single app, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'Get' and resource 'application info' are specific.

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 implies usage by mentioning filters 'by guid or name', suggesting this tool is for retrieving details of a specific app rather than listing all apps. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. siblings like 'get_apps' (for listing) or 'get_app_object' (for specific objects), nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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