describe_app_sagemaker

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. The phrase 'Describe' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any specific behaviors, required permissions, return format, or limitations. This is a tautological restatement of the tool name and adds no value beyond what the name already implies.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified and merely restates the purpose implied by the tool name. It does not earn its place by providing any useful information beyond the title, making it closer to a placeholder than a well-structured description.

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 has an output schema and four required parameters, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It does not explain expected behavior, how the tool fits into the broader workflow, or any special considerations. The output schema covers return values, but the lack of usage context and behavioral details leaves significant 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four required parameters, including detailed explanations of each field (e.g., domain_id, user_profile_name, app_type, app_name). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information, so it receives the baseline score of 3 as specified for high schema coverage.

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 action 'Describe' and the resource 'SageMaker App', which is specific enough to identify the tool's basic function. However, it does not add any scope or distinguishing details that differentiate it from sibling describe tools for other SageMaker resources (e.g., describe_domain, describe_endpoint), so it falls short of a 5.

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, what conditions apply, or how it compares to alternatives like list_apps_sagemaker or create_app_sagemaker. It is a bare statement with no usage context.

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