apps_get_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing beyond the endpoint string. The implicit GET/read semantics are the only hint, and there is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or what is returned.

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 short but redundant, repeating the same endpoint string twice with zero informational value. This is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness; no sentence earns its place.

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 45-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent gets no context on the resource, its relationships, or the meaning of the include/fields/limit filters beyond what the raw schema names imply.

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% across all 45 parameters (id, include, and the many fields_*/limit_* filters), so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is baseline-3 territory when the schema does all the work.

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 is the raw HTTP endpoint "GET /v1/apps/{id}" repeated twice in parentheses. It restates the tool name rather than explaining what an 'app' resource is or how this differs from the sibling apps_get_collection. It is essentially a tautology with a verb+resource form bolted on.

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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus apps_get_collection (which retrieves the app list) or apps_update_instance. No prerequisites, no alternatives, no context are provided.

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