list_applications

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool lists applications, omitting any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects on state. As a read operation, it is presumably safe but not explicit.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, efficiently conveying the core function without extraneous 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 description is adequate for a standard list tool but lacks mention of the return format (e.g., list of applications, paginated response). No output schema exists, so the agent must assume a common pattern. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally complete.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds value by grouping parameters into 'type filter' and 'pagination', indicating optionality. However, it does not detail syntax or defaults for 'page' and 'page_size' beyond what the schema provides.

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 the action ('List'), resource ('Logto applications'), and optional filters ('type filter and pagination'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_application' which targets a single entity.

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 optional filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_application' or when to apply specific filters. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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