Yarn Get Application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does add genuine context by disclosing the RM access requirement and explaining that 'diagnostics' carries the YARN error message on failure. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or describe failure behavior when the application ID is unknown.

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?

Two compact sentences; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded, and the prerequisite trails behind, which is a sensible ordering. Nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully highlights the diagnostics field and the auth prerequisite. However, for a tool whose parameters are completely undocumented, leaving cluster/service/application_id unexplained is a meaningful gap.

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% across three parameters (cluster, service, application_id), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them – no format for application_id, no explanation of what 'service' selects or when to omit it. Only the README pointer for RM credentials offers tangential help.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Detalhe de uma aplicação direto do ResourceManager') and enumerates what it returns – state, queue, resources, wait time and diagnostics. The singular 'application' implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling yarn_list_applications, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a per-application detail lookup, and it adds a real prerequisite ('Requer acesso ao RM'), but it never states when to prefer this over yarn_application_attributes or yarn_list_applications, nor any exclusions.

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