umbrella_appdiscovery_applications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists discovered applications, implying a read operation, but does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response structure looks like. The existence of the additionalParams escape hatch is not hinted at in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide enough context for correct invocation. It fails to explain what fields the returned applications include, how to use limit/offset for paging (though schema covers them), how the additionalParams escape hatch works, or how this tool relates to the sibling app discovery tools. An agent is left guessing at the output format and filtering capabilities.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, additionalParams). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb (List), resource (cloud applications), and scope (in this organization's traffic). It is specific enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the other app discovery tools (app_identities, app_risk). The name reinforces the purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the other app discovery tools or any alternatives. There is no mention of filtering options, output usage, or conditions that would make this tool preferable. An agent has to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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