List applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return type (app ids) and scope (optionally per workspace), but doesn't describe pagination, result limits, sorting, or whether the read operation requires authentication. The disclosure covers basics but leaves notable gaps.

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 concise sentences, zero wasted words. The first states the core function and optional filter, the second highlights the output's downstream usefulness. Efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with 1 fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential purpose and return-value usage. It's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention whether results include page count or metadata. Given low complexity, 3 is fair.

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%, so the workspaceId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'Restrict to a single workspace id.' The description echoes this optional-filter intent ('optionally filtered to one workspace'), adding marginal value but not going beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Lists Appsmith applications') and clarifies the optional workspace filter, which differentiates it from siblings like list_workspaces and list_pages. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish across all sibling list tools, though the resource type is clear.

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?

It implies usage via 'optionally filtered to one workspace' and notes the return value feeds other tools ('Returns app ids needed by the other tools'), which provides useful context. But it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like appsmith_search_entities for broader search.

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