git_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does convey that this is a read-only listing operation ('List'), but it does not disclose any constraints such as required domain format, authentication needs, or behavior when no git applications exist. The output schema covers return values, but other behavioral context is missing.

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 short, front-loaded, and easy to parse: it opens with the action and then lists the sole argument. However, the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema and adds no unique value, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Although this is a simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description remains incomplete for practical use. It does not explain what constitutes a 'git application,' how the domain should be formatted, or what occurs on invalid input or empty results. The output schema covers return values, but input semantics and edge cases are left open.

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 0%, and the Args section only says 'domain: Domain,' which is a pure restatement of the schema title. No additional meaning is added—no format, example, validation rules, or allowed values—so the parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List git applications on a domain.' The verb 'list' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like git_get (which retrieves a single app) and git_deploy/git_fetch/git_webhook (which act on apps), so an agent can immediately tell this tool is for enumerating 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?

The usage is implied by the action—use this when you need an overview of git applications for a domain—but the description never names alternatives or gives exclusions. For example, it does not say 'use git_get for a single application' or 'use git_deploy to trigger a deployment,' leaving the choice partially to inference.

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