get_external_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered by structured data. The description adds only that the result set is scoped to applications usable for issue external links; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether apps are workspace-scoped.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource being listed is front-loaded after the verb. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 trivial no-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the description states what is returned at a high level. Since there is no output schema, it could say more about the shape of an application entry (id/name needed for create_external_link), but it is adequate for invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is reported at 100% and the schema is an empty object.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list external applications usable for issue external links. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_external_links (which lists links, not applications), though the term 'external applications' is never defined and no sibling is named explicitly.

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 by the phrase 'available for issue external links' — an agent can infer this is a discovery step before create_external_link. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of get_external_links as the alternative for reading existing links.

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