List queries / APIs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. This is a read/list operation but the description never explicitly states it's non-destructive or read-only, doesn't mention auth requirements, pagination, or what happens when no queries exist. The body inclusion behavior is implied but not detailed.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. It gets straight to the point with the essential scope qualifier (non-JS actions) and return content (datasource and body) in an efficiently front-loaded structure.

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 list tool with full schema coverage of both parameters and no output schema requirement, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It slightly under-delivers on not naming the sibling alternative explicitly and not disclosing read-only/non-destructive nature, but otherwise is adequate for this tool's complexity.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: applicationId ('Application id') and includeBody ('Include each query's configuration body'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'body' is part of the return, but doesn't explain what the body field semantically represents beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given 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?

The description clearly states it lists non-JS actions (database queries and API calls) of an application, including datasource and body. This is specific with a verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling appsmith_list_js_objects which lists JS objects, though it doesn't explicitly name it.

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 usage context by clarifying it lists non-JS actions (excluding JS objects), which indirectly tells the agent when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over appsmith_list_js_objects or appsmith_list_datasources, or mention the includeBody parameter's role in deciding when to use it.

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