get_application

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. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target resource.

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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for detailed behavioral explanation. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter semantics, it could benefit from more context on usage and constraints to fully guide an agent.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'specific New Relic application' but doesn't clarify what 'app_id' represents (e.g., numeric ID, name, GUID) or where to find it. It adds minimal value beyond implying a single identifier is needed, insufficient to fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 details') and resource ('specific New Relic application'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_applications' by specifying retrieval of details for a single application rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what details are included or the scope of information returned.

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 implies usage when details for a specific application are needed, contrasting with 'list_applications' for multiple applications. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus other detail-retrieval tools like 'get_dashboard' or 'get_server', nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication or rate limits. The context is clear but lacks comprehensive alternatives or exclusions.

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