List applications

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already discloses the read-only nature. The description adds the specific returned fields (status, target role, outcome history) but does not disclose behavior like pagination, defaults, or effect of the limit/status parameters.

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, clear, and grammatically complete sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list with two optional parameters, and the description gives basic return fields. However, without an output schema, it should explain filter semantics and default behavior to be fully complete for an agent.

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 description provides no meaning for the 'limit' or 'status' parameters. It only mentions that applications are listed with status, but not that status can be used as a filter or how limit behaves.

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 applications and specifies the returned attributes (status, target role, outcome history). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools like list_queue or list_batches, though the resource and attributes are specific.

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?

No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_queue, list_batches, or audit_log. The description gives no context on appropriate usage or filtering scenarios.

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