Daftar aplikasi & pengajuan saya

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lihat' signals a read-only listing and the status qualifiers ('sudah tayang', 'masih berjalan') add filter semantics. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, authorization, or what happens when there are no results.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds scope or status information, and the list-like structure matches the tool's purpose.

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 simple zero-parameter design and no output schema, the description sufficiently states what the tool returns conceptually: the account's published apps and ongoing submissions. It could be more complete by noting read-only guarantees or result set behavior, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lihat' (view) and names the resource precisely: all published apps ('aplikasi yang sudah tayang') and ongoing submissions ('pengajuan yang masih berjalan') belonging to the current account. This separates it from the sibling tools, which validate, submit, check status, or update rather than list.

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 clearly implies the appropriate context: use when the agent needs an overview of the current account's published apps and in-progress submissions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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