get_all_applications

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Retrieve all applications' and return type, but omits behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, scope limitations, or whether it returns all applications accessible by the user or all in the system.

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 succinct with one functional line and a return note. It avoids fluff but could be more informative (e.g., specifying the scope 'accessible to the authenticated user'). It earns a 4 for being concise without being wasteful.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally complete: it states what it does and the return type. However, it lacks context on authentication requirements, pagination, or any limitations. The output schema exists but is not referenced. Gaps remain for full agent decision-making.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add parameter semantics because none exist. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional value is needed.

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 'Retrieve all applications from Codemagic,' specifying the action (retrieve), resource (all applications), and source (Codemagic). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application' (singular) and 'add_application' (write action).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the list of sibling tools like get_application and add_application, the description lacks usage differentiation.

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