List applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It does so by specifying filter semantics (case-insensitive substring on name/fqdn) and enumerating returned fields with status examples, which is especially valuable because no output schema exists.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and output fields, the second gives the only invocation nuance. No filler and every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough information to select and invoke correctly: output fields, filter behavior, and resource type. Missing pagination/ordering details are minor given openWorldHint and the simple scope.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the input schema ('Case-insensitive substring matched against name and fqdn'), and the description largely restates that instruction. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly identifies a list operation on applications and enumerates the meaningful output fields (name, uuid, fqdn, status, git repo/branch, build pack, project, environment). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling list_* tools and get_application.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_application or other list_* siblings. The only usage note targets the filter parameter ('Use filter to narrow...'), not tool selection, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name.

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