list_application_lists

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden: it implies read-only behavior via "List" and documents the return envelope including an error message key. However it omits permissions required, pagination/result limits for large collections, and any ADOM-lock or scope caveats, which matters for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and domain explanation, then args, then returns; each sentence serves a role. The Returns block restates what the existing output schema already declares, which is mild redundancy but not harmful.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value section is largely duplicative, and since there are no annotations the description should have covered read-only intent and pagination behavior for a list endpoint. It is adequate for a simple two-parameter list tool but leaves scope and volume questions unanswered.

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%, so the description must compensate and mostly does: it explains that adom defaults to the DEFAULT_ADOM env var or "root", and that name_filter is a partial-match filter. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare typed properties, though the matching syntax/case sensitivity of name_filter is left unspecified.

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 and resource ("List application-control lists in an ADOM") and follows with a sentence explaining what an application-control list is and where it applies. The listing scope is clear relative to the singular get_application_list sibling, though it never explicitly names that sibling as the alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the way to enumerate application-control lists before calling create/update/delete_application_list, and the mention of firewall policies hints at the domain. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_application_list for fetching a single list.

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