application_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by specifying 'Uses cursor pagination,' which is crucial for understanding how to handle large result sets. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., structure of listed applications).

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 extremely concise with three short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second specifies filtering options, and the third discloses pagination behavior.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the action, filtering, and pagination, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or performance considerations (e.g., default limits). With no output schema, more guidance on response structure would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'jobId and/or status,' which is implied in the schema but not explicitly stated. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('applications'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'application_info' (single application) and 'candidate_list' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'application_change_stage' or 'application_create' which have different actions.

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 implies usage through 'Can filter by jobId and/or status,' suggesting when filtering might be appropriate, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'candidate_list' or 'candidate_search' for related data. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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