Published RDS Apps

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), so the description does not need to repeat these. It adds some context by mentioning the types of data included in the listing, but does not disclose additional traits like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and output details, and the second provides usage scenarios. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it front-loaded and easy to understand quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, output details, and usage context. However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the lack of filtering options or clarifying the relationship with sibling tools like ras_pub_get_all_items for completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output details, adding value by specifying what information is included in the listing without redundant parameter explanations.

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 specific action ('List published RDS applications') and resource ('RDS applications'), distinguishing it from siblings like ras_pub_get_avd_apps or ras_pub_get_vdi_apps by specifying RDS applications. It also lists specific attributes included in the output (app names, executable paths, server associations, user filter assignments).

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 ('to review which applications are published via RDS, check app configurations, or troubleshoot application launch issues'), giving practical scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as ras_pub_get_all_items which might overlap in scope.

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