List OtaKit apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: results are scoped to the connection-bound organization, and it explicitly will not infer an app when the slug is missing. Return shape and pagination behavior are left to the schema.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the primary purpose and scoping constraint are front-loaded, and the negative guarantee about guessing is stated compactly.

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?

For a read-only paginated list tool with full schema coverage on all three params and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing essential is missing. The absence of any mention of default page size or pagination flow is a minor gap but is already handled by the schema.

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%, so slug, limit and cursor are already documented in the schema. The description's 'exact slug' phrasing largely restates the schema's 'exactly this slug' and adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (apps) and pins the scope to the connection-bound organization, which distinguishes it from the connection's other list_* siblings. It is clear but never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally requiring an exact slug' implies the two usage modes (browse all vs. lookup one), and 'Never guesses an app when the slug is absent' hints at lookup semantics. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given, so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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