bunny_list_mc_apps

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idemotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already carry the safety profile, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the account-wide scope and frames the resource as Docker-image deployments at the edge, but it does not disclose return format or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 the action front-loaded. The second sentence defining Magic Containers is helpful context for placing this tool among 50+ bunnny.net siblings, though it is tangential to actually invoking the call.

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 list tool whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the definition is nearly complete: it states exactly what is listed and at what scope. The response shape is not described and there is no output schema, but 'List' reasonably implies an enumeration of applications.

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 zero properties and 100% coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter detail for the description to add. It correctly avoids inventing parameter noise.

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?

Names a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'List all Magic Container applications in the account'. The resource noun 'applications' distinguishes it from siblings like bunny_list_mc_registries and bunnny_list_mc_regions, and the account scope separates it from per-app tools like bunnny_get_mc_app and bunnny_get_mc_app_oview.

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 rather than stated: it is a zero-parameter list operation, and the Magic Containers explanation helps an agent recognize when the domain applies. However, it never names alternatives or says when to prefer this over the per-app siblings (bunnny_get_mc_app, bunnny_manage_mc_app, bunnny_get_mc_app_oview).

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