arvan_list_cdn_apps

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation (listing action). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations, but lacks extra context like rate limits or data freshness.

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 very concise (one sentence, seven words). It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity, but it still presents the core idea effectively.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, but annotations indicating safety, the description does not explain return format, pagination, or any result details. It is insufficient for a list tool, leaving the agent without critical usage context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'domain' parameter. The description only mentions 'for a domain', which implies the parameter's role but does not explain its format, constraints, or meaning. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (List), resource (CDN apps), and scope (for a domain). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by specifying 'CDN apps'. However, it could be more precise by defining what a 'CDN app' is, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While there are many list tools in the sibling list, the description does not include any context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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