get_mobile_app_config

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond confirming it is a read operation and does not explain error behavior or the shape of the returned configuration details.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and target immediately.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and helpful annotations, the description is complete enough to select and invoke it. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly pointing to the list tool for discovering sys_id values, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter's meaning is documented as a sys_sg_mobile_application sys_id. The description adds no extra syntax, source, or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('mobile app configuration') and specifies 'a specific' one, distinguishing it implicitly from list_mobile_app_configs. It does not explicitly name the sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'a specific' implies retrieval by sys_id rather than enumeration, so the usage is inferable. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus list_mobile_app_configs or where to obtain the required sys_id.

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