Get Scaleway IAM Application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the response includes the API-key count. No contradictions. It adds value beyond annotations without being required to repeat them.

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 11-word sentence that is succinct, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 'get' operation with one parameter and a clear return benefit (API-key count), the description is mostly complete. It states the resource, identifier, and a notable return field. However, it does not specify other returned fields or error handling (e.g., 404). Given the simplicity and comprehensive annotations, the gap is minor.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description says 'by id' but this is already implied by the parameter name 'application_id' and format 'uuid'. It adds no additional meaning about what the ID represents or how to obtain it. The description fails to add semantic value beyond the parameter name and type.

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 states the verb 'Get', the resource 'IAM Application', the identifier 'by id', and an additional detail 'including its API-key count'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaleway_iam_list_applications (which returns all) and create/update/delete (mutations).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that scaleway_iam_list_applications should be used for listing, or any prerequisites like needing the application_id. The name and title imply the use case, but explicit context is missing.

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