List App Connector Functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the return structure (each entry with name, params, optional description), the instruction to surface descriptions verbatim, and the 'live' nature of the data. This goes beyond annotations by explaining output handling and source.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then details the return format, then gives usage guidance, and finally mentions the optional parameter. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns (structure and fields), when to call it, and how to handle the optional description field. It lacks nothing critical for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 only parameter, device, is fully described in the input schema with details about IP/serial and Dev Studio matching. The tool description merely repeats 'Optional device (IP or serial)' without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no additional semantics.

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 live function metadata (name, params, optional description) from RALE's getExternalControlFunctions. It specifies the exact resource (app connector functions) and the verb (list), and distinguishes itself from siblings like app_function (which executes) and app_connector_connect/disconnect (connection management) by focusing on metadata retrieval.

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 says to call this tool before authoring appFunction steps, providing a clear usage context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is well defined. The optional device parameter is also noted, but no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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