igniral_list_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no parameters are needed and that the user is identified via a service token, indicating authentication context. It does not mention any destructive or side effects, which is appropriate for a listing tool.

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 consists of three short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains usage, and the third clarifies parameters. Every sentence is necessary and concise, with no wasted 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description covers purpose, usage, and authentication. For a simple listing tool, it is adequately complete. It does not specify return format or pagination, but given the simplicity, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds value by confirming 'Takes no parameters — the user is identified by the configured service token,' which clarifies the lack of input. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Lists all applications owned by the current user.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like igniral_create_application (create) and igniral_update_dynamic_endpoint (update).

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to check what applications already exist before creating new ones, or to get the applicationId of an existing application.' It implies when to use (before creation) and what to extract, though it does not explicitly list alternatives.

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