paydirt_list_apps

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

Annotations already define readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying 'authenticated Paydirt account' and reinforces 'without changing them', which aligns with the annotations. It does not introduce contradictions. Slight extra context beyond annotations justifies a 4.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the usage context in the first sentence, and straightforward action in the second. Every word earns its place, no redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it names the action (list all apps), scoping (authenticated account), and non-mutating behavior. It also explains a practical use case (resolving app ID after setup). This fully covers the tool's simple purpose.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, but it does implicitly mention resolving app IDs, which hints at the output relevance.

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 tool 'Lists all apps for the authenticated Paydirt account', using the specific verb 'Lists' and resource 'all apps'. It distinguishes from siblings like paydirt_get_app (single app) and paydirt_create_app by focusing on the listing action and the 'without changing them' safety note.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'when the user asks which Paydirt apps exist or when an agent must resolve an app ID after setup'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear. A score of 5 would require explicit when-not/alternatives.

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