apps_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that retained drafts are included and that the scope is the invited host, but says nothing about pagination despite the cursor parameter, which is a notable omission for a list operation.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the operation verb is front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

With annotations covering the read-only/idempotent safety profile and no output schema, the description only needs to add operational context. It omits pagination behavior and sibling differentiation, so it is minimally adequate rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single cursor parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description must compensate for this gap but never mentions pagination, result-size limits, or how to obtain the next cursor.

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+resource ('List Apps and retained drafts') plus the scope 'on the invited host', which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It never differentiates itself from the many apps_* siblings, especially apps_state, so an agent must guess whether listing differs from reading state.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the ~29 sibling tools. 'On the invited host' is the only scoping hint, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to apps_state or apps_operation_status.

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