List Edgegap applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about organizational scope and the meaning of an application, but does not disclose pagination behavior or response details.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the action, then give a concrete usage rule, then define the domain concept. No wasted words.

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?

The description is sufficient for deciding to call it and knowing its scope, and the annotations cover safety. It falls slightly short by not hinting that results are paginated or that page/limit should be considered for a complete inventory.

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 two pagination parameters are optional, and only 'limit' carries a schema description; 'page' has only type/constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so it fails to compensate for the incomplete schema coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the applications in the Edgegap organization.' The definition of an application as grouping versions of one game server distinguishes it from sibling list_app_versions and places it clearly in the create/deploy workflow.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to call this before creating or deploying anything to avoid duplicate applications. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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