application_get_current

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

Annotations already declare the tool safe (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), lowering the bar. The description adds valuable behavior details about the return value: it's a 'projected application shape', `name` and `description` remain raw author data, and `untrusted_text` is a separately fenced copy. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret results.

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 tightly structured with bolded headers ('Purpose', 'When to use', 'Returns') and is only three sentences long. Every sentence provides necessary information 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 the tool's simplicity (no params, rich annotations, presence of an output schema), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to expect in the return value, without needing to explain structured fields already present in the schema.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description mentions the endpoint `/applications/@me`, confirming there are no user-supplied arguments. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('bot/app application object') with the exact endpoint (`/applications/@me`), making the tool's function crystal clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `application_modify_current` and `application_get_role_connection_metadata` by focusing on the current application object.

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 an explicit 'When to use' section listing concrete use cases (confirm app identity, read flags, install URLs, tags, interaction endpoint). It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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