get_apps_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the filtering behavior (search by name substring, filter by ID, optional additional filters) which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the returned information takes, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured in a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, required parameters, and optional parameters. Every word serves a purpose with no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and parameter requirements. However, for a tool that retrieves application information with multiple filtering options, more context about the return format, error conditions, or typical use cases would be helpful. The description is minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the relationships between parameters (either/or requirements for app_name/app_id, optional combinability of app_code/space_id), but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'get kintone app information' with filtering capabilities. It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('kintone app information'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from other app-related tools like 'get_app_acl' or 'get_app_settings' among the siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear usage context by specifying that either 'app_name' or 'app_id' must be provided, and that 'app_code' and 'space_id' are optional combinable filters. This gives practical guidance on parameter requirements. However, it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_app_acl' or 'get_app_settings' from the sibling list, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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