kratos_list_applications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool inspects the source tree and reports compiled status, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating or mention any prerequisites (e.g., a valid source tree). This is acceptable for a list operation but lacks explicit safety/behavioral notes.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action ('List all Kratos applications') and then adds a useful qualifier. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains both the scope (source tree) and the distinguishing behavior (compiled flag). It could possibly add a note about typical invocation scenarios, but overall it is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since the schema is already complete with 100% 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 clearly states the tool's function: listing all Kratos applications found in the source tree. It also adds a distinctive detail—flagging which ones are compiled/importable—which differentiates it from sibling tools that list elements, variables, or solvers.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to see available Kratos applications and their build status) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. This is adequate but not fully explicit.

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