application_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' tag explicitly marks the operation as non-mutating, and 'resilient if absent' discloses behavior when the application is missing. It does not describe output format or failure modes, but for a simple read-only status tool the disclosure is reasonable.

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 compact and front-loaded: an explicit read/status statement with a resilience note, followed by a single-line parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the one parameter is fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the returned status contains or exactly what 'resilient if absent' means. An agent can call the tool safely but may be uncertain how to interpret its result.

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 0%, so the description had to explain the target parameter—and it does. 'SolarWinds target name from config; omit for the default' clearly defines the source of the value and the behavior when omitted, fully compensating for the schema's silence.

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 opens with '[READ]' and identifies the resource as 'SAM application status (Orion.APM.Application)', giving a clear verb and object. It distinguishes the tool from sibling status tools like node_status or interface_status by the SAM/APM application resource, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as node_status or volume_status, and no exclusions or alternative conditions. The note about the target parameter is parameter usage, not tool-selection guidance.

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