get_application_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. There are no annotations to contradict (so not a contradiction), but the description doesn't disclose what happens on error, auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'condensed' means in terms of what gets excluded from the response. For a read-only health check tool, this is a modest gap.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema, which reduces the need to describe return values in the description. Given that it's a straightforward health-check read tool with a simple schema (1-2 params), the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't clarify what 'condensed' excludes compared to get_application, and no annotations exist to cover safety/behavior, leaving some gaps around edge cases and error behavior.

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%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions in the description field that overlaps. The description 'condensed health and sync status' adds general semantic context about the output but provides no guidance on the parameters. The parameter names (name, instance) are self-explanatory, but with 1 required parameter and zero description coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 it returns condensed health and sync status for quick checks, which is a clear verb+resource purpose. It mentions condensed status specifically, distinguishing somewhat from the sibling get_application which likely returns full details, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling as an alternative.

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 explicitly says to use this when you don't need full application details, establishing clear context. It provides solid guidance on when to select this tool over get_application, though it doesn't enumerate other alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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