list_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include per-stage counts, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how the counts are scoped. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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 tight sentence with zero padding. The core resource is front-loaded and the optional filter and supplementary counts are appended parenthetically, which is efficient and readable.

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 return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a list tool the description leaves the valid status vocabulary and any result-ordering behavior undocumented, which is a meaningful gap given the 0% schema coverage on the only parameter.

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% and the single 'status' parameter is a bare string with no enum, so the schema tells the agent nothing about valid values. The description only repeats that filtering by status is optional ('optionally filtered by status') and does not enumerate the accepted status values, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource ('Your tracked jobs') plus an aggregation ('counts per pipeline stage'), so an agent can tell this is a personal application-list tool rather than a search tool. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling, but the resource is distinctive enough to distinguish it from search_jobs or get_job.

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 'Your tracked jobs' implies this is for the user's saved pipeline rather than the global job corpus, hinting at divergence from search_jobs. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusions or named alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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