liara_get_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., JSON structure, included fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific app'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., app configuration, status, resources), potential side effects, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data about apps, this omission leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outputs.

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%, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter identifies 'a specific app'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor provides extra value.

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') and resource ('detailed information about a specific app'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'liara_list_apps' by focusing on a single app rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., configuration, status, metrics), 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing app name), contrast with 'liara_list_apps' for discovery, or specify use cases like checking app status before operations. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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