users_visible_apps_get_to_many_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about pagination (the limit param implies it), required permissions for reading a user's visible apps, or the shape of the response. It adds no behavioral context whatsoever.

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?

It is short, but wasteful: the identical path appears twice in parentheses, a formatting artifact rather than substance. Brevity here stems from under-specification, not from disciplined editing.

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 3-parameter collection endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the endpoint returns and how pagination works. It provides none of that, leaving the agent with only the schema to work from.

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%, with all three parameters (id, limit, fields_apps) documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond a restatement of the path, but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is a raw HTTP path restated twice: 'GET /v1/users/{id}/visibleApps (GET /v1/users/{id}/visibleApps)'. It does name a verb and a resource, but conveys no more than the tool name already does and offers zero differentiation from siblings like users_visible_apps_create_to_many_relationship or users_visible_apps_delete_to_many_relationship.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling relationship tools. The agent is left to infer that a GET relationship endpoint returns the visible apps for a user, and receives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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