List OAuth apps

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's real added value is the disclosure that client secrets are never returned here and exist only once at creation via tailscale_create_oauth_app. That is meaningful data-sensitivity context, though pagination and rate-limit behavior are unmentioned.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: what is listed, what the response contains, and the secret caveat plus the id-recovery workflow. Front-loaded with no filler.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the returned array, its fields, and the omission of secrets. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the response shape, which is useful but not required for invocation.

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 (list OAuth Apps), scopes it to your tailnet, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, redirect URIs, scopes). It also flags the alpha status and distinguishes itself from tailscale_get_oauth_app's id-based lookup by emphasizing enumeration and id recovery.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: recovering the id of an app you did not record, and routes that id onward to tailscale_delete_oauth_app. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with tailscale_get_oauth_app for the case where the id is already known, but the context is strong.

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