tealfabric_get_webapp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at one useful behavior — that omitting version returns a default (presumably current) version — but says nothing about read-only safety, error behavior for unknown webapp_id or version, or permission requirements.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary resource lookup front-loaded and the optional parameter noted second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The only real gap is what the returned object looks like and whether omitting version truly means 'latest/current' — worth one clarifying clause.

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%, so both parameters are already documented ('Webapp UUID', 'Version number (optional)'). The description restates the optionality of version but adds no format, range, or default-version semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a single Tealfabric webapp by ID'), which an agent can immediately match to the list_webapps/get_webapp pair. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from (list_webapps, get_process), but the singular-resource framing makes the distinction obvious.

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 only implied: 'by ID' suggests this is the lookup path once an ID is known, versus tealfabric_list_webapps for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisite (e.g., must the webapp be published?), and no mention of alternatives.

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