ashby_list_applications

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable context: which filters are server-side vs. client-side, and the response structure (items[] with fields, has_more, next_cursor) which is not fully covered by annotations. This goes beyond the annotation's basic read-only hint.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose and filters, then includes example queries and response format. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The structure is logical: what, when, implementation note, response.

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 listing tool with 9 parameters (all optional), the description covers intended use cases, filter behavior, and response shape. However, it doesn't explain the interplay between status and stage filters (e.g., whether they are combined with AND), nor does it mention pagination details beyond cursor/has_more. Still, given the output schema is absent and parameters are extensive, it does a good job of orienting an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema by clarifying that date and status filtering are server-side (efficiency) while stage and source are client-side (applied by MCP server). This helps agents understand performance implications and where filtering occurs, which the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 applications across all jobs, with explicit filters (date, status, stage, source). It differentiates itself from siblings like ashby_list_candidates_for_job and ashby_get_application_details by focusing on cross-job listing with filtering.

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 provides clear example questions that signal when to use the tool, and mentions that date/status filtering is server-side while stage/source is client-side. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like ashby_list_candidates_for_job for job-scoped lists.

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