list_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add value by stating the return content (app names, IDs, credential status), but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or error behavior for an invalid orgId — relevant gaps for a listing tool.

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 with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return summary earns its place by telling the agent what output to expect.

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 single-parameter list tool, the description is adequately complete: purpose, scope, and return content are covered, and the schema fully documents the one parameter. Remaining gaps are minor — no mention of pagination behavior or failure semantics for an invalid org — but they do not block a competent agent from calling it correctly.

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 100% and the schema already documents orgId as 'The organization ID to list applications for.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, which aligns with the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 ('List'), resource ('applications'), and scope ('in an AgeKey organization'), and tells what it returns. The bulk-listing phrasing ('all applications') and org scoping distinguish it from siblings like get_application (singular fetch) and list_organizations (different resource) without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 description implies when to use it — when you need the full set of applications in an org — but it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as using get_application when a single app's details are needed. No conditions or exclusions are stated.

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