adjust list apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are scoped to the ADJUST_APP_TOKENS allowlist and applications outside it are never returned, which tells the agent it may get a subset rather than all apps.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste that front-loads the resource and follows with the scoping and allowlist clause. Nothing is repeated verbatim from the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return fields, and it still notes native currency and configured operating systems. For a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete, with only the lack of guidance relative to the sibling list/catalog tools as a gap.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is complete, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing filtering options that do not exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the Adjust applications') and scopes it precisely to what the token can read plus the allowlist constraint. It does not name a sibling, but 'applications' is inherently distinct from the events/catalog/report siblings, so an agent can select it without confusion.

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?

Usage is only implied: it's the enumeration call for apps an agent already knows about. There is no explicit when-to-use versus adjust_list_events or adjust_get_catalog, and no stated preconditions or exclusions beyond the allowlist filter.

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