list_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists rows but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has pagination, or any ordering. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral traits beyond the schema are missing.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but it covers the essential usage. The name 'applications' versus 'ledger rows' might cause minor confusion, but overall it is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It effectively explains that the 'status' parameter is a filter and that an empty value returns all rows, adding semantic context beyond the schema's type and default.

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 'List ledger rows' which is a verb+resource, but the tool name is 'list_applications', creating a slight mismatch. However, it is clear that the tool lists items, and the sibling tools confirm it is a list operation. The purpose is mostly clear but could be more aligned with the name.

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 explains the optional filter parameter 'status' and that empty status returns all rows. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings like 'list_queue' or 'list_claim_fragments'. The usage context is limited to parameter usage.

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