ecp_apps_list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'List all apps,' giving no detail about what fields are returned, whether the response includes metadata, or any other behavioral traits. The description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource effectively for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the tool's simplicity and zero parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it. The lack of output-format detail is a minor gap, and the absence of sibling differentiation is somewhat compensated by the clear scope of 'all apps.'

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema leaves no ambiguity. The description does not need to add parameter details; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all apps on this hosting account.' It clearly communicates the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with app-related siblings like ecp_apps_get or ecp_oneclick_blueprint_apps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ecp_apps_get, ecp_apps_directory_tree, or ecp_oneclick_blueprint_apps. The agent is left to infer selection from the name and one-line description.

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