applications_list

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does contribute genuine behavior: the default filter excludes 'new' and results are sorted most-recently-updated first, which an agent could not have inferred. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, return shape, or how supplying the status parameter changes the default filter.

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?

One short sentence with the scoping constraint and sort order front-loaded, and no filler. Its brevity is the source of its other weaknesses, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient rather than padded.

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 single-parameter tool, the definition leaves the essential question unanswered: what the status argument does relative to the built-in 'not new' filter. There is no output schema and no annotations to fall back on, so the description is the only source of behavioral truth and it stops short.

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?

The schema documents the single 'status' parameter at 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — 'status' is never mentioned. Worse, it creates ambiguity: it is unclear whether passing a status overrides the 'other than new' default, combines with it, or is ignored.

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 names the returned set and its scope ("everything with a status other than new") but never states the resource — 'applications' is only recoverable from the tool name — and contains no verb. It does add real scope detail (exclusion of 'new', ordering), so it is more than a tautology, but it does not stand alone against siblings like jobs_list or application_set_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus sibling list/read tools such as jobs_list or job_get, and no guidance on when to be here at all. The one useful usage implication — that 'new' applications are excluded by default — is stated as a fact about output rather than as a call condition.

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