pier_list_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format and that it is a listing operation, but it doesn't explicitly state that it is read-only or explain pagination behavior despite having page/pageSize parameters. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding necessary information: the operation, the return shape, and the workflow guidance for discovering IDs. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, return structure, and usage context. It could be slightly more complete by noting that page/pageSize may be needed to retrieve 'all' apps when there are many, but the essentials are present.

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%, with both page and pageSize documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating that this lists apps/services, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), the exact resource ('apps/services deployed on the Pier server'), and the return shape ('array of services with IDs, names, status, and URLs'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by framing this as the discovery operation for app IDs used by all other 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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: call it first to discover app IDs, then use those IDs for other operations. This gives practical routing guidance that distinguishes it from all the mutation and status siblings.

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