Get App Installation

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered structurally. The description adds the specific return content (pinned manifest version, config, status), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't describe what happens on not-found or error conditions, but with strong annotation coverage the bar is met.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, exactly captures the tool's purpose and return content. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is nothing extraneous.

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?

This is a simple fetch-by-key tool with one string parameter and strong annotations covering behavior. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the key fields returned. For a read of this simplicity, the description is adequate but could benefit from explaining what an 'appKey' is and how it relates to the installation context, given no schema descriptions exist.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the single parameter. The description does not add any meaning to 'appKey' beyond its name — it doesn't explain what an app key refers to, where to find it, or its format. With only one parameter and 0% coverage, this is a missed opportunity, though the parameter name itself is fairly self-explanatory.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('installation record') with a parenthetical listing of what that record contains (pinned manifest version, config, status). It distinguishes from siblings like kilango_list_app_installations (which lists multiple) and kilango_install_app (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description itself, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With siblings like kilango_get_catalog_app, kilango_list_app_installations, and kilango_get_connection, there could be confusion about which lookup tool fits which scenario. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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