tealfabric_list_webapps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about tenant scoping and optional filtering, but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only (no mutation of webapps), nor disclose return shape or pagination behavior. 'List' implies safety, but that implication is not stated.

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?

One tight sentence that frot-loads the action and resource, then states scope and optional filters. Every word contributes; there is no repetition, fluff, or buried context.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with 0 required params and full schema coverage, so invocation is well-specifed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose return format, whether results are paginated, or the explicit read-only nature -- gaps that matter when the description is the only behavioral signal available.

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 100%: both limit and search are fully described in the schema. The description merely restates what the schema already says ('Optionally fileter by search or limit'), adding no extra semantic value. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webapps') with clear scope ('for the authenticated tenant'). The plural 'webapps' combined with 'List' differentiates it from siblings like tealfabric_get_webapp (singular retrieval) and the mutation tools (create/update/publish), so an agent can pick it confidently.

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 usage -- listing webapps is distinguishable from getting/creating/updating/publishing one -- but it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or named sibling, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool-name convention alone.

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