infomaniak_list_nodejs_apps

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description reveals significant behavioral context: it is a manager-private endpoint requiring SASESSION + CSRF cookies, it typically returns one entry because each hosting runs a single app, and it returns vhost_route_id and FQDNs. These details are not present in the annotations and materially affect invocation and output expectations.

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, then key behavioral nuances (typical single result, return value, auth requirement). Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, typical cardinality, the critical return value (vhost_route_id), and the authentication requirement. An agent has sufficient context to select and invoke this tool correctly without further clarification.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, describing hosting_id as 'Node.js hosting id (service_id 57)' with an exclusive minimum. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter itself, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Node.js applications running on a hosting_3 container.' It clearly states the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling tools by noting it returns the vhost_route_id needed for every other Node.js tool. The purpose is immediately obvious and unambiguous.

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 explicitly positions this tool as a prerequisite for all other Node.js tools by stating it returns the vhost_route_id needed for them. It also provides an important usage condition—auth mode (INFOMANIAK_AUTH_MODE=auto) for the manager-private endpoint. This gives the agent clear guidance on when and how to invoke it.

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