List Apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (name, ID, status) for each app. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions/auth requirements, or whether inactive apps are omitted by default (that is only in the schema). Useful but incomplete behavioral context for a read tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and with zero filler. The output-shape and downstream-usage notes each add distinct value rather than restating the name.

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 simple read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and downstream usage, which is nearly sufficient. It leaves minor gaps around pagination and default exclusion of inactive apps, though the latter is handled by the schema.

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 100%, so both parameters (space_id, include_inactive) are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's "within a space" and mention of "status" loosely echo these parameters but add no format or default detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns all apps within a space") and scopes it to a space, which cleanly separates it from podio_list_spaces and the singular podio_get_app. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 sentence "Use app IDs to get field definitions or work with items" explains what to do with the output, which implies this is a discovery step, but it never says when to choose this tool over podio_get_app or podio_list_spaces, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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