get_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the scope ('about a specific application'), and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'detailed information' includes, how parameters like 'expand' and 'include' modify the response, and any behavioral aspects like error cases. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to help an agent use the tool effectively, but it falls short.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters ('application_id', 'expand', 'include'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'expand' or 'include' fields might be, their typical values, or how they affect the output. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific application'), which is clear but vague about what 'detailed information' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_applications' by focusing on a single application, but doesn't specify what makes it different from 'get_project' or 'get_user' in terms of data returned. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the nature of the information retrieved.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an application ID), when not to use it (e.g., for listing multiple applications), or direct comparisons to siblings like 'list_applications' for bulk retrieval or 'update_application' for modifications. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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