app_executables__get_executable

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of error behavior for unknown UUIDs, no note that the fields projection is applied locally, and no statement of what is returned.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but two of the three clauses are redundant: the HTTP route duplicates the annotation title and the final clause repeats the tool name. Little of it 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 single-resource GET with rich annotations and a fully documented two-parameter schema, this is minimally adequate. It would be improved by naming the alternative list tool and noting that projection via 'fields' happens locally after fetch.

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 100%, and the executableUuid and fields parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 says 'Get details of a specific executable', which is a verb plus resource but essentially restates the tool name and the HTTP title. The word 'specific' hints at single-resource retrieval versus the sibling list_executables, but no explicit contrast is drawn.

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 call this versus app_executables__list_executables or how to obtain an executableUuid. The single-vs-list distinction is only weakly implied.

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