get_app

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists returned fields, explains last_build_error semantics and remediation steps, and states the required apps:read scope.

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 front-loaded with the main return fields, then error-code guidance. It is dense but every sentence serves a purpose, though the error-code mapping is lengthy enough to be slightly heavy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the main returned fields and error behavior. It does not fully explain workspace scoping or contrast with get_app_status, but annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details.

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 id and workspace_id are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable at baseline 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?

States a specific resource and enumerates the app details returned (name, status, memory, runtime, main file, publication). It implies a single-app lookup, distinguishing it from list_apps, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling get_app_status.

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?

Provides error-handling guidance routing the agent to get_logs for BUILD_FAILED/INSTALL_FAILED and explaining other last_build_error remedies. However, it does not say when to use get_app versus get_app_status or other detail/status tools.

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