list_applications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a paginated list, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain pagination mechanics, default page size, or any required permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, concise sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes essential information, and there is no redundancy.

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, the description covers the core purpose and mentions paging. An output schema exists, so return values are handled elsewhere. However, the paging behavior and limit semantics are under-specified, preventing a perfect score.

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 input schema has one parameter (limit) with no description, and the description does not explicitly explain the limit parameter. The phrase 'with paging' vaguely implies a relationship, but an agent cannot confirm that limit controls page size. With 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 clearly states 'List all applications (app registrations) in the tenant' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_application_by_id and list_service_principals by clarifying it lists all app registrations at the tenant level.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to enumerate all app registrations in the tenant. The mention of paging indicates it is suitable for potentially large result sets. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'all' scope makes this fairly implicit.

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