list_app_recoveries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'List all' communicates a read-only enumeration and scoping by app version, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, ordering, or any side-effect expectations beyond the obvious read nature.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

This is a simple list tool with only two required parameters and an output schema available. The description adequately covers the core operation and scope; it could be improved by noting when to prefer it over related recovery management tools, but it is not incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating that recovery actions target a version, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('app recovery actions') and scope ('for an app version'). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from sibling recovery tools like create_app_recovery, cancel_app_recovery, and deploy_app_recovery.

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 usage for enumerating recovery actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. The 'List' verb provides weak context, but no direct guidance is given.

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