List 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 discloses the tool's output scope (apps and their URLs) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention any limitations like pagination, or describe response format. For a simple list, this is acceptable but not overly transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the valuable detail about URLs. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to clarity.

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—no parameters, no output schema—the description is largely complete. It states the scope and the included URL information. The only minor gap is the absence of any note about response structure or potential edge cases, but for a simple list tool this is not critical.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100% since the schema is an empty object. According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any confusion.

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 the resource 'all apps', scoped to 'the Slipway workspace'. It adds specificity by mentioning that running preview/deploy URLs are included, which distinguishes it from other app-related tools like create_app or delete_app. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 this is the tool for listing apps, and siblings like list_files clearly target different resources. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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