csm_appe_show

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 'read-only', which signals no side effects and is useful. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., profile fields, formatting) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess the output structure.

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 short phrase that immediately states the purpose and read-only nature. It is front-loaded, contains zero filler, and is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It states what it is ('view') but does not specify the return format or content, which the agent would need to interpret results. Since it is a simple show tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, but no compensation is needed.

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 identifies the resource ('APP enforcement profile') and the verb ('view'), and explicitly notes it is read-only, which distinguishes it from the sibling csm_appe_set. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or contrast it, so it stops short of perfect clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling show tools or the setter csm_appe_set. The description implies it is for viewing but gives no context such as 'use this to check current settings' or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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