heroku_get_app

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. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a Heroku app') and adds specific details ('including dynos and formation'). There is no wasted language, and it directly addresses what the tool does without 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?

Given the complexity of retrieving app details, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to be complete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' entails beyond dynos and formation, how data is returned, or any behavioral traits like permissions. For a tool with no structured support, this description is insufficient to fully guide an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'appName' fully documented in the schema as 'Name of the Heroku app'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a Heroku app'), specifying what data is retrieved ('including dynos and formation'). It distinguishes from siblings like heroku_list_apps (which lists apps) and heroku_get_logs (which retrieves logs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with heroku_config_vars or heroku_list_addons, which also provide app-specific details, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 the app name), exclusions (e.g., not for modifying the app), or comparisons to siblings like heroku_list_apps (for listing apps) or heroku_config_vars (for configuration details). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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