describe_app

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, potential errors, or any side effects. It only states what output content is, not how the tool behaves.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main idea, though it could incorporate more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves ambiguity around 'real interface' and does not frame when or how to use the tool. It is a borderline viable description with clear gaps.

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 description mentions 'inputs, parameters, defaults' as part of the output, but it does not explain the required input parameter 'app_id'. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter's title.

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 conveys that the tool provides the app's interface definition from Tapis, including inputs, parameters, and defaults. It is clear in function and distinct from sibling tools like describe_material, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any context such as prerequisites or typical use cases. The description is purely definitional with no usage direction.

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