arvan_get_cdn_app

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as error handling on nonexistent app, idempotency, or rate limits. It merely states the action, which is already evident from the name and 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it too minimal for effective guidance.

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 no output schema and a simple get-by-id operation, the description should clarify the return data (e.g., app details). It fails to do so, and the parameter ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about invocation requirements.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The description says 'by id' but the schema requires two parameters (domain, app_id), creating potential ambiguity. It adds no semantic value to explain what these parameters represent or how they are used.

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 it gets a CDN app by id, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list, create, delete, update. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the need for both domain and app_id, which could cause slight confusion.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_cdn_apps for overview, or delete_cdn_app for removal). No context about prerequisites like domain existence.

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