List Portal Apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is structurally disclosed. The description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — it doesn't clarify return format details or how activation status is determined, though the minimal essence is captured.

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 that fully states the tool's purpose. Zero filler, zero wasted words. This is appropriately compact for a simple list operation.

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 operation with strong annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) and a single parameter, the description is largely adequate. It doesn't explain what fields the returned list contains, but with no output schema and a straightforward purpose, the minimal description suffices. A small addition about what info each app entry shows would make it complete.

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 carry the burden for the single parameter, portalRef. The description names the target portal ('in a given portal') which loosely connects to portalRef, providing some meaning. However, it doesn't specify what format portalRef expects (ID, name, ref string) beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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 tool lists which installed apps are activated in a given portal. The verb 'list' plus resource 'installed apps activated in a portal' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like kilango_list_catalog_apps (catalog apps) and kilango_list_app_installations (installations generally), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 gives clear context (activated apps in a portal) but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion statements. Given the sibling tools like kilango_get_app_installation, kilango_list_app_installations, and kilango_activate/deactivate_app_in_portal, some differentiation guidance would help, but the purpose is self-evident enough.

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