list-rum-applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only list operation, which is appropriate, but does not disclose any potential quirks such as pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. It adds some context about creation metadata but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage adequately. It mentions a companion tool. It could add details about default sorting or any limitations, but given simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 no parameters, with 100% schema coverage (trivially). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but according to guidelines, for 0 parameters the baseline score is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 it lists all RUM applications in Datadog, and provides specific use cases: discovering frontend apps, getting application IDs, and seeing who created them. It also distinguishes from the sibling search-rum-events by calling it a companion.

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 contexts for use: discovering which frontend apps are monitored, getting application IDs for RUM queries, or seeing who created them. It mentions search-rum-events as a companion, implying that tool is for events, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond that.

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