inspect_app

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral information itself. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only inspection and the parenthetical indicates what categories of details are returned. However, it does not disclose the response format, whether all four categories are always returned, or any authentication prerequisites; for a simple getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action and immediately scopes the result via the parenthetical. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter read-only inspection tool, the description gives the essential return categories and the schema fully documents the parameters. It is missing only minor details such as the structure of the response and behavior when the app does not exist, so it is nearly complete for straightforward use.

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%, with both projectName and serviceName documented as plain name strings. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters relate to the returned details, so it meets the baseline without going beyond the schema.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Get app service details') and a parenthetical enumerating the relevant detail categories (env, domains, build, source). This distinguishes it from project/database/compose inspection tools by naming the app service resource, though it does not explicitly contrast any sibling.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving app-level service details rather than project, database, or compose details, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion such as 'use list_domains for domain-only queries.' An agent can infer the target context from the name and listed fields, but not with high confidence.

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