List app encryption declarations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these, such as return format, pagination behavior, or data scope. It only restates the tool's purpose, so no additional value over annotations is provided.

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 a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and the parenthetical briefly clarifies the domain without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward list operation with a fully documented schema and rich annotations, but it does not mention return structure or filtering capabilities. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the returned data could improve completeness, though the tool's simplicity makes this only a minor gap.

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 100% description coverage for all four parameters (limit, filter.app, filter.builds, filter.platform), so the schema fully explains parameter semantics. The tool description adds no parameter explanation, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'app encryption declarations', with a clarifying parenthetical noting export compliance and encryption usage. This distinguishes it from all sibling list tools (e.g., list-apps, list-builds) that target different resource types.

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 implies usage (you use this when you need encryption declarations), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The tool name and parenthetical give enough context for an agent to infer use, but no direct 'use this when' statement is present.

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