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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive listing operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results include exact JSON input schemas and that some effects require the publish permission, but it does not describe return shape or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the key resource and return detail. There is no filler or repetitive wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what is listed, that returned actions include exact JSON input schemas, and a permission caveat. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether the app is implicit or pagination exists, but nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description's mention of 'one app' does not map to a schema parameter but does not conflict with 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 and resource: list the actions a connection may run on one app, including their exact JSON input schemas. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_apps or list_releases, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource being listed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative sibling. The permission note adds context but not selection guidance.

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