whodb_platform_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail -- workspace targeting is per-call and 'without changing defaults' -- but says nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for a list operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally clearer about the detail-view parameters (id/version) that the schema exposes, but there is no wasted text.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and with a schema at full description coverage, this is adequate. However, the schema exposes id/version params for 'detail, files, or version view' that the description never reconciles with the stated 'List' purpose, leaving a small gap in scope clarity.

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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description restates the workspace tuple but adds only the 'does not change defaults' nuance, which is marginal beyond what the schema's workspace description already conveys.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List hosted ontology-powered apps in the selected project.' The verb 'List' implies a collection and implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling whodb_platform_app, but the description never names that sibling or other app_* tools to make the boundary explicit.

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 states the scope ('selected project') and explains per-call workspace targeting, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative routing (e.g. when to call this vs whodb_platform_app for a single app). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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