infomaniak_get_nodejs_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by disclosing the authentication requirement (SASESSION + CSRF cookies) and the 'Manager-private' restriction, which are behavioral constraints beyond the schema. It also enumerates the returned configuration fields, providing transparency about what will be fetched. No contradiction with 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?

Two clear sentences. The first sentence fronts the purpose and enumerates the key data fields; the second provides access requirements. Zero filler, every word earns its place. The list of fields is dense but structured as a comma-separated enumeration that sets expectations for the output schema.

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 that an output schema is present, the description needn't explain return values, and it doesn't. It covers the tool's purpose, the resource type, key configuration fields, and access requirements. The access/auth caveat is important for an agent to invoke it correctly. An explicit pointer to list_nodejs_apps for discovery is present via the parameter description. It could mention relationship to nodejs_app_status or nodejs_app_aliases, but those are less relevant to a 'get full configuration' operation.

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%, so both parameters are already documented well. The description adds crucial cross-referencing for vhost_route_id: 'Also called feature_id in some responses' and 'get it from infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps', which helps resolve the known ID naming ambiguity. hosting_id is straightforward but the cross-resource guidance is valuable. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 specific verb ('Get full configuration') and identifies the exact resource ('Node.js application') with a list of concrete details (Node version, listen port, SSL status, IPs, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps (list vs. get) and infomaniak_nodejs_app_status by targeting full configuration rather than status or aliases.

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 explicitly notes 'Manager-private — requires SASESSION + CSRF cookies,' giving clear access context. The sibling tool name infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps is referenced in the parameter description ('get it from infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps'), providing a retrieval path. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like status/logs/aliases.

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