list_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'private' which hints at access control, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, sorting, or any side effects. It reads as a simple read operation but omits context that an agent would need, such as whether it returns only the current user's records or all accessible private records.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the filtering option without any redundant words or filler. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It states what is listed and the filtering capability, and the output schema covers return values. Some missing nuance like auth scoping exists, but it is not critical for a basic list operation.

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 schema's status parameter has no description, so the tool description's mention of 'optionally filtered by their status' adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the parameter. However, it does not enumerate allowed status values or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'private application records', and adds a key optional filter by status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_application, update_application_status, and especially discover_public_jobs, which is about public jobs rather than private applications.

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 phrase 'optionally filtered by their status' implies the tool is for viewing applications and supports a filtering use case, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no direct comparison to siblings, so the guidance is only implied.

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