list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no hidden side effects exist. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, explaining that the slug is what appears in URLs and generated code and how to map it back to the app id.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core listing purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important usage note.

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 read-only list operation with a single optional parameter, the description plus schema and annotations provide everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. Return fields are stated, and the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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 sole parameter organizationId is fully described in the schema, including its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable since schema coverage is 100%.

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 the apps in the organization') and the exact fields returned (id, slug, status). The slug-to-app-id mapping guidance strongly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_projects and list_boards.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool first when an app id is needed, which is actionable usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the tool name and context make the scope clear.

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