list_applications

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns 'metadata', which is helpful but the description is brief. With strong annotations, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the output type.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is complete enough. It conveys what the tool does and what it returns (metadata). However, it could potentially mention that it returns a list or that it is scoped to the current workspace.

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% as there are no properties to describe. Since there are no parameters, the description has no burden to explain them. 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 'List all Spinnaker applications with their metadata' clearly states the verb (List), the resource (applications), and the scope (all, with metadata). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_application' (single application) and 'list_pipelines' (different resource).

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 gives a clear purpose but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives. While it's intuitive that it's for listing all applications, no exclusions or context are mentioned.

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