bb_application_properties

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 explicitly states the operation is read-only and that modifications require admin, which tells an agent this is a safe, non-destructive call. It could also mention permission requirements or output shape, but the core safety profile is clear.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and read-only nature are front-loaded, and the practical use case is stated in the second sentence.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description covers its purpose, safety, and a concrete use case. It could be slightly more complete by noting what the response generally contains, but for such a low-complexity tool the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the returned properties represent (application properties, server version), which is useful even though there is nothing to parameterize.

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 ('Read') and resource ('server-wide application properties'), clearly distinguishing it from the repository, branch, and pull-request tools in the sibling list. It also adds the key detail that this is a server-level operation, not a resource-specific one.

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 states when this tool is useful: confirming connectivity and server version. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the zero-parameter, server-wide scope is sufficiently distinct from all sibling tools that no exclusion is necessary.

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