get_app_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the required permission scope ('apps:read') and the metric set, but says nothing about freshness cadence, pagination, or result ordering for the all-apps case.

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?

Two compact clauses front-load the resource and metric set, then the no-id fallback. Nothing is padded and the scope tag is a single trailing parenthetical.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does name the three metrics returned. Adequate for a read tool whose annotations already encode the safety profile; only the shape/order of the all-apps list is unstated.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: omitting the optional `id` changes the result from one app to all apps. That optionality semantics is not derivable from the schema's bare 'Application ID' text. `workspace_id` is left entirely to the schema.

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 verb+resource combination ('Live status ... of an application') and enumerates the returned metrics (CPU, RAM, uptime), which separates it from get_app or get_metrics without naming them. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from those siblings, which keeps it at 4.

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 clause 'without `id`, of all of them' tells the agent exactly when to pass an id and when to omit it, so the two usage modes are clear. No sibling alternatives or exclusions are named, which is the only gap.

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