get_app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope requirement (apps:read) and the specific fields returned, which is useful but does not disclose behavior like 404 handling, whether workspace_id is required for access, or response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and fields, with the scope note appended. It is efficient and free of filler, though the scope parenthetical could arguably be moved to annotations or usage guidance.

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 read-only detail tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus get_app_status, and does not mention whether workspace_id is needed for cross-workspace access or what happens if the app is not found. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 (id and workspace_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 clear verb-resource pair ('Details of an application') and enumerates the specific fields returned (name, memory, runtime, main file, publication). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_app_status and list_apps by focusing on full application details, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage context: it is a read-only detail lookup for a single application, and the scope annotation (apps:read) hints at permission requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_app_status, list_apps, or get_logs, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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