Yarn List Applications

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load: 'Lista' implies a read-only listing, but that is never stated, nor is pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter. It does disclose useful operational traits (time window from now, CM-format queue names, CM filter syntax), which is real value beyond the schema.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the per-parameter notes are terse and scannable. The list-like format is efficient, though the mixed Portuguese/English phrasing and omission of two parameters keep it from being fully polished.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explaining, and most parameters are covered. However, the single required parameter (cluster) and the pagination-controlling limit are undocumented, which is a meaningful hole for an agent assembling a call.

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% and there are 9 parameters, so the description has to compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates state values ('running', 'finished', 'all'), sort_by values (current_memory, memory GB-hour, vcores, duration, start), and explains hours, user, queue format, extra_filter syntax, and service autodetection. The gaps are limit and the required cluster parameter, neither of which is explained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('Lista jobs YARN') and narrows scope by naming included engine families (Spark, Hive/Tez, MapReduce) and explicitly excluding Impala, which is the key disambiguation against the impala_query_* siblings. It does not, however, name nearby siblings such as yarn_get_application or yarn_top_consumers to route between them.

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 parameter explanations imply usage contexts (time windows, exact-match filters, sorting), and it helpfully points to yarn_application_attributes for valid extra_filter attributes. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement versus yarn_top_consumers, yarn_queue_usage, or yarn_utilization_report, so routing is left to inference.

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