brancher_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose any potential edge cases (e.g., output size, pagination, or error behavior). The mention of 'every' suggests comprehensiveness, but no additional behavioral traits are described.

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 a single concise sentence that precisely conveys the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is perfectly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is complete. It specifies exactly what is listed (Hypernode app names) and the filtering condition (with a configured API token). No further details are necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids any unnecessary parameter details.

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 action (List), the resource (Hypernode appname), and a specific condition (with a configured API token). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like brancher_list by specifying the token requirement.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—when you need to list Hypernode apps that have API tokens. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident enough for basic selection.

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