list_applications

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists directories and their files—a non-destructive read operation. No side effects, permissions, or limitations are mentioned, but the behavior is inherently 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), return values need not be explained. The description provides useful detail about directory contents but omits the parameter and any relation to siblings. Adequate for a simple list tool but with gaps.

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 coverage is 0% (workspace_dir not mentioned), and the description adds no meaning to the sole optional parameter. With low coverage, description must compensate but fails entirely, leaving agents unaware of the parameter's purpose.

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 lists all job application directories and their files, which differentiates it from siblings like 'get_application' (single app) and 'read_application_file' (specific file). The verb 'list' and resource 'application directories with their files' are specific and actionable.

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 an overview of all applications and mentions typical files, hinting at when to use sibling tools. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is given, though context from sibling names fills the gap somewhat.

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