List Company Applications

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description does not contradict these. The description adds value by describing the returned metadata fields and optional filters, which is useful given the lack of an output schema. However, it does not disclose pagination or rate limit behavior.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and return information. It is appropriately sized with no redundant content.

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?

Given the simple list operation, no output schema, and full schema parameter coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, return fields, and filters. It could benefit from noting behavior when no filters are applied, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters (scope, sys_id, instance, installed_only). The description only restates the filter options and does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool lists company-internal applications and specifies the metadata returned (name, scope, version, install status, update availability). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_store_apps and get_app_details by focusing on internal shared applications.

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 description implies this tool is for listing company-internal applications but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_store_apps or list_scoped_apps. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage 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.