infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds beyond annotations: 'Manager-private endpoint' and auth requirements, plus typical single-entry behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences totaling ~40 words. Front-loaded: purpose first, then typical behavior and key output, then auth context. No redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, return values are not required. The description covers the key output (vhost_route_id, FQDNs), hosting type, single-app behavior, and authentication. Complete for a list tool.

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 100%. The parameter 'hosting_id' is described in schema as 'Node.js hosting id (service_id 57).' The description reinforces this by specifying the hosting type. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List Node.js applications running on a hosting_3 (Cloud Server Node.js) container.' It specifies the verb (list), resource (Node.js apps), and context (hosting_3). It distinguishes from siblings by noting this tool returns the vhost_route_id needed for other Node.js tools.

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 context: 'Each Infomaniak Node.js hosting runs a single app, so this typically returns one entry.' It also states 'Returns the vhost_route_id needed for every other Node.js tool' which implies this tool is a prerequisite. Authentication requirements are given (SASESSION + CSRF cookies). Missing explicit when-not or alternatives.

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