List App Recoveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the verb 'list.' It does not confirm the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination, ordering, whether recoveries in all states (drafted, deployed, cancelled) are returned, or any auth requirements.

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 ten-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero redundancy. It does not restate the title or repeat schema information, and every word earns 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?

Complexity is low: two fully-documented required parameters, an output schema present, and no nested objects, so the brief prose is adequate for invoking the tool correctly. The main gap is the absence of any guidance tying this list operation to the recovery lifecycle, but nothing required to call it is missing.

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 both parameters, yielding a baseline of 3. The phrase 'for an app version' reinforces that package_name and version_code jointly scope the query, but the description adds no semantics beyond what the schema properties already state.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'List all app recovery actions' — scoped to 'an app version,' which adds precision beyond the title. The list verb implicitly separates it from the recovery mutation siblings (create_app_recovery, deploy_app_recovery, cancel_app_recovery), but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from any alternative.

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 description offers no guidance on when to call this tool versus the recovery-related siblings or other list tools. The natural pipeline (list before creating/deploying/cancelling a recovery) is left entirely to inference; no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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