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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two modes and the returned artifacts, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about where examples come from, whether listing is filtered/paginated, or permission needs.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded. The parenthetical file list is dense but earns its place by naming the return payload.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth. It covers modes and artifacts but leaves ambiguous what the list form returns (names, paths, and structure), which an agent needs to chain this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does convey that 'name' selects a single example and that examples are identified by name, but does not clarify name format or whether it matches directory names.

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 specific verbs (list / return one) and the resource (example apps), plus the concrete artifacts returned (program, host.rmti, policy.toml). It is distinguishable from siblings like remit_check or remit_format, though it never names them.

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 'or return one ... by name' phrasing implies the selection condition: omit name to list, supply name to fetch one. That is usable context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of what this tool is not for.

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