get_app_items

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Get'), which is consistent with the tool's name, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or permission requirements. The presence of pagination parameters in the schema is not highlighted.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It could be improved by adding structure or hints about usage, but it is not overly verbose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow, leaving gaps for effective agent invocation.

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 the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 action (get) and resource (list of application items) with filtering criteria (namespace and code), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tasks or get_processes. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an 'item'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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