list_realtime_apps

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

With no annotations, the description needs to carry the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention pagination, account-scoping, authentication, or what the response contains. It largely restates the tool name.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for an agent that needs context about the Realtime Kit domain, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain more than the resource name. It does not describe what a Realtime Kit app is, how results are returned, or whether pagination is involved, leaving the agent with only the name and one schema field.

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 schema covers the only parameter, account_id, at 100%, so the schema is the primary source of parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but because coverage is high the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List Realtime Kit apps' uses a specific verb and resource, so an agent can tell it lists Realtime Kit applications. It is clear about the basic operation, but it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as list_calls_apps or list_realtime_livestreams.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusion or prerequisite information is provided. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the right listing tool.

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