List apps

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation through the verb 'List' and mentions the output (URLs), but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, requires no special permissions, or describe any side effects. The agent can reasonably infer a safe read, but the description adds only minimal behavioral context.

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 immediately states the action and scope, and includes the critical output detail. There is no redundancy or filler; every word serves a purpose. It is optimally concise and structured.

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 outlines the return value (URLs) but does not specify the structure of the result, such as whether it returns app names, IDs, statuses, or a list of objects. This could leave an agent with questions about how to parse the output, though the basic purpose is clear. Adequate 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (empty object). The description correctly avoids parameter details since there are none. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 in the Slipway workspace', and adds the key output detail of running preview/deploy URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files, which focus on files, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention any prerequisites, or give conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name that this is for listing apps, but the description itself offers no supporting guidance.

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