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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the `current: true` marker semantics and how visibility differs between a workspace-approved connection and a single-app connection, including apps created after connecting.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then three tight sentences covering the current marker, scope, and next-step usage. Slightly dense with detail but every sentence adds actionable information; no filler.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden and does so: it describes the returned list (apps with ids, a current marker) and the visibility model. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the output or proceed is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description compensates well by explaining what the returned ids are for and how to feed them into the `app` argument, adding meaning that an empty schema cannot carry.

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 (list apps) and scopes it precisely: 'the Bridge apps this connection can work on, with their ids.' The visibility rules (workspace-wide vs single-app) differentiate it from siblings like get_app, and an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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?

Explains the downstream usage condition clearly: pass an id as the `app` argument of any tool for a single call, or call use_app to change the default. This routes the agent to the right alternative (use_app), though it doesn't state an explicit 'don't use X, use this instead' exclusion beyond that.

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