nayori_list_applications

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by naming the on-chain contract, listing the returned fields, and documenting that withdrawn applications appear with active=false. This helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 two sentences with the main action and resource front-loaded. The withdrawn-applications detail is valuable. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations, but this is a minor inefficiency.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and the active-flag behavior, plus the source contract. It omits things like pagination or ordering and leaves asset semantics to the schema, but for a straightforward listing tool this is largely sufficient.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only implies jobId via 'for a job' and does not explain asset (sbtc/stx) or how it affects the listing. The schema's enum and integer range are self-evident, but the description adds little meaning beyond that.

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 ('List on-chain applications') and resource ('job-applications-v1'), with named fields and scope ('for a job'). It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as nayori_get_job or nayori_open_jobs.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool when you need the application records associated with a given job. The note that withdrawn applications appear with active=false aids interpretation of results, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance.

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