get-application-list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Get') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list is in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('Get the list of applications') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details. It earns a 4 for conciseness but loses a point for not structuring essential info upfront.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, behavioral aspects, or usage context, leaving gaps for an AI agent. For a tool with minimal structured data, more descriptive detail is needed to be complete.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('size' as 'The size of the page'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description adds no extra param info.

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 'Get the list of applications' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of applications'), but it's vague about scope (e.g., all applications vs. filtered) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-browser-list' or 'get-group-list' that also retrieve lists. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity for sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for all applications or requires specific conditions. With sibling tools like 'get-browser-list' available, this omission leaves usage unclear.

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