get_app_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that results include live-session version and open script alongside headless executables, which is useful behavioral context. It stops short of saying whether probing is passive or whether it touches the filesystem, which matters for a backend-discovery call.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the key distinction (live GUI session vs headless executables) is front-loaded. The parenthetical listing sits mid-sentence, so the payoff word 'available' arrives before the reader knows what is being enumerated — a minor structural wrinkle.

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 need not enumerate return fields, and it does not waste space doing so. For a zero-param, read-only discovery tool it covers both result categories. The only gap is a missing note on when a backend would be absent or unavailable, which an agent might need to interpret an empty result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the description correctly does not invent any. With an empty schema and full coverage, there is nothing further the description needs to add on inputs.

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 names the resource concretely: Nuke backends, broken into the live GUI session (version, open script) and installed headless executables. That is specific enough to separate it from siblings like get_script_info or get_node. It loses a point only because the verb is implicit — the sentence reads as a noun phrase describing return content rather than stating 'returns available backends'.

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: an agent would call this to discover which backends exist before choosing a runtime. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, and no named alternative is contrasted (e.g., get_script_info for script-level detail). The reader must infer the trigger condition.

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