Get Catalog App

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries minimal burden. The description adds useful context by enumerating the exact manifest fields returned, clarifying authMode semantics (apikey/oauth) and the nature of connectionFields (what a human must supply), which extends value beyond the 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?

A single, dense, front-loaded sentence that lists return fields and their semantics with zero filler. It packs appClass, authMode, connectionFields, and widget structure into one efficient statement.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the return-value enumeration is thorough. No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing the key manifest fields. It could mention search semantics for appKey or error behavior, but these are minor gaps for a simple catalog read.

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 bears full responsibility for explaining the single parameter appKey. However, the description never mentions appKey or explains how to identify which app to fetch. The tool name and sibling naming convention (get_catalog_app vs list_catalog_apps) imply appKey selects a specific app, but nothing in the description compensates for the 0% coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Return one app manifest') and enumerates exactly which fields it returns: appClass, authMode, connectionFields, and widgets (with widgetKey + renderRole). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like kilango_list_catalog_apps (which lists apps) and kilango_get_app_installation (which retrieves install state rather than the catalog manifest).

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 clearly states the return content but does not explicitly tell when to use this vs. alternatives. However, the detailed field enumeration implicitly signals this is for inspecting catalog app definitions/metadata, which a get-tool in a catalog context naturally distinguishes from list or installation tools. No explicit when-not or alternative references are provided.

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