beta_testers__apps__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety. The description adds the HTTP GET method, which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not provide additional behavioral details beyond what annotations offer. No contradictions.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The first states the purpose, the second provides the endpoint. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description is adequate. It could mention that the response contains app objects, but that is implicitly understood. Overall, complete enough given the tool's simplicity.

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 clear definitions for id, limit, and next_url. The tool description does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already suffices. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 apps for a beta tester, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('apps belonging to a beta tester'). It includes the exact HTTP method and path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like beta_testers__list or beta_testers__get.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not state prerequisites (e.g., need a beta tester ID) or exclusions (e.g., cannot filter apps). The description is minimal, lacking any context about suitable use cases.

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