inspect_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining the uuid/allocationID relationship and the raw integer representation of resources, which are non-obvious and critical for correct interpretation. It does not mention side effects or auth, but this is clearly a read-only introspection tool.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then provides the essential field-variant note, and ends with a clear conversion warning. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers the most crucial contextual quirks (allocation identifiers and unit conversions) that would trip up an agent. The only minor gap is not giving a hint about the partitionName parameter's role, but the name itself is fairly meaningful.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not elaborate on `appId` or `partitionName`. While the names are self-explanatory, there is no guidance on how they relate to the returned metadata or any format expectations (e.g., is appId the UUID?). The description does not bridge the schema coverage gap.

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 tool's function: 'Provides detailed metadata for a single application, including its allocation log and resource requests.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from sibling tools that list or summarize many applications (e.g., get_applications_by_state).

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a single application'—it is the tool to call when deep metadata on one application is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it.

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