List your Workday apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description echoes 'Read-only.' It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing that some apps share a generic launcher id and may return a near-empty page, plus the recommended workaround. This helps the agent anticipate an edge case and recover.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: first states what is listed, second explains why and how to use the output, third handles a known edge case. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 parameterless discovery tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it specifies what is returned (apps each with a launchable task id), the intended flow into workday_get_task, and the fallback behavior for problematic launchers. The annotations cover safety and idempotency, so nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no input schema burden to compensate for; the baseline is 4. The description still usefully clarifies that the launchable taskId appears in the output and is the value that connects to workday_get_task, giving the schema-less return value practical semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the Workday apps available on your home screen.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling workday_get_task by noting that the returned taskId should be passed there, so an agent can tell this discovery tool apart from the actions that consume its output.

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?

It explicitly frames when to use this tool ('Use this to discover what you can read') and then routes the agent to workday_get_task with the taskId. It also provides a conditional fallback for generic launcher ids, telling the agent to open the app in a browser and pass the URL to workday_get_task instead, which is clear, specific guidance beyond a bare list.

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