adl_applications

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description only restates 'Read-only', which earns no credit. It does add one useful trait beyond annotations: the result is at most a single application and may be absent ('if any'). No mention of permissions or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the core fact front-loaded. The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotation and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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?

For a zero-param read with no output schema, the description should describe the returned object's shape, but it only says 'the one ... application'. Adequate to call safely, but thin on what comes back.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the one configured opted-in application for noninterfering background lifecycle'). An agent can tell it returns applications rather than the single app in adl_app, though the sibling distinction is left implicit and the qualifier 'noninterfering background lifecycle' is domain jargon.

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 guidance on when to call this instead of adl_app, adl_targets, or adl_capabilities. The only implied usage cue is 'if any', which hints the result can be empty but does not tell the agent what to do in that case.

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