heroku_list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional team filtering but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 perfectly concise - two short sentences that communicate the core functionality and optional feature without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently adds the filtering detail.

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's low complexity (single optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the list contains, authentication requirements, or response format. The description meets basic needs but leaves room for improvement.

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%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'team' parameter completely. The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering capability but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how team names are formatted, what happens without the parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'Heroku apps', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like heroku_get_app (single app) and heroku_list_addons/releases (different resources). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with heroku_config_vars or heroku_get_logs which might also involve listing operations.

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 implies usage context by mentioning optional team filtering, suggesting this tool is for retrieving app inventories. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus heroku_get_app (single app) or heroku_list_addons/releases (different resources), nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements.

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