list_apps

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read, and the retention-default sentence is genuinely useful behavioral context, but auth requirements, rate limits, result shape/size, and whether inactive apps are ever returned are all unstated. The presence of an output schema offsets the return-value gap only partially.

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 prose is front-loaded and the purpose and default land in the first two sentences. The Args block partially restates the prose, costing a little redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, filter semantics, format, and default behavior. Missing permission/auth context keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names the parameter, gives its format (ISO 8601 datetime string), and explains both its filtering effect and the server-side default. Only the mismatch between schema default of null and the stated thirty-day default is unexplained.

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 available Scout APM applications'), which is enough to distinguish it from the get_app_* siblings that all operate on a single named app. It does not explicitly name a sibling or rule one out, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It explains the purpose of the single optional filter and its default window (thirty-day metric retention), which implies the sensible usage pattern. It never states when to omit the filter, when to prefer a different tool, or what prerequisites exist, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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