application_get_for_maintenance_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the output (list of applications eligible for maintenance mode) and provides mapping for osType and maintenance modes. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or pagination. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 two sentences, efficiently front-loading the purpose and adding parameter details and context. It is appropriately sized with no obvious fluff, though the second sentence could be slightly clearer.

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 simple nature of this list tool with no output schema, the description explains what it returns and how results relate to maintenance mode. However, it omits details like return format, sorting, pagination, or edge cases. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% with organization_id and override_organization_id described in schema. The description adds crucial meaning for os_type by providing its values (1=Windows, 2=MAC, 3=Linux, 5=Windows XP), which was missing from schema. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 'Get Application Options for Maintenance Scheduling List applications eligible for use with a Maintenance Mode', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like application_get_by_id and application_get_for_application_options by specifically mentioning maintenance mode and approval processing.

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 usage 'when processing an approval request' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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