get-rum-application

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without revealing potential behavior such as error responses, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness. The agent gets no insight beyond the surface-level operation.

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 sentence of 9 words, which is extremely concise. Every word is necessary: it states the action, resource, scope, and method. There is no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, or required permissions. In context with many sibling tools, the missing usage guidance reduces completeness.

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% (single parameter 'id' with description 'RUM application ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring guidelines, when coverage is high, baseline is 3; no extra value is added.

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), resource (detailed information about a RUM application), and method (by ID). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list-rum-applications' which lists all applications, and 'create-rum-application' which creates one. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or context-specific scenarios. There is no comparison with other get-* tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent without direction on making the right choice.

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