get_applications_by_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the virtual state mapping (active includes New, Accepted, Running, Completing, Failing), the default status (running), and importantly warns that resource values are raw integers (bytes/millicores) and need conversion. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it omits details like pagination or error cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information (purpose, virtual state/status nuance, and unit conversion warning). 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 tool has an output schema, so return value structure need not be in the description. The description covers the core lifecycle state filtering, the status sub-filter, and the critical unit conversion, making it mostly complete. Minor gaps include not explaining partitionName and not addressing potential large result sets or ordering.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the 'state' values, the 'status' options for active state, and the default status, but it does not explain 'partitionName' at all, which is a required parameter. This is a significant gap for a parameter that must be provided.

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 opens with 'Retrieves applications filtered by their current lifecycle state', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (get_partitions, inspect_application, etc.) by focusing on applications by state, and enumerates the exact states (active, rejected, completed) and the virtual state composition.

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 context on when to use the tool (to retrieve applications by lifecycle state) and explains the optional status narrowing for the active state, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives context but no exclusions.

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