list_canvas_apps

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it explains that results vary by source, listing the fields returned in each mode (name, created by, modified on vs. logical name, display name, AppVersion stamp). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and packs relevant details into parentheses. It is efficient and avoids filler, though the parenthetical structure makes it slightly dense.

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 no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits important details: accepted values for 'source' and 'environment', how to specify an offline folder, and how this tool relates to siblings like canvas_overview. It is adequate for a simple read-only list operation, but not fully complete.

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% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'source' and 'environment' parameters. It partially does by mentioning live environments and offline solution zips/folders, but it never explicitly maps those values to the parameter names or defines accepted formats/defaults, leaving the agent to infer the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource (canvas apps) and the two scopes it operates on: live environment and offline solution zip/unpacked folder. It also lists the return fields for each scope. However, it never explicitly states the verb 'list', relying on the tool name, and it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like canvas_overview.

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 conveys context by distinguishing between environment-based and offline/folder-based canvas apps, implying when each source path is relevant. It does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention alternative tools such as canvas_overview or list_controls.

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