get_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists applications, but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, or any pagination or performance implications. The lack of safety or side-effect information is a significant gap for a tool that may be called by an agent without prior knowledge.

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 a single, brief sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise, but perhaps too terse – it omits any elaboration on usage, defaults, or behavior. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices essential information for completeness.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention pagination defaults, filtering capabilities beyond rules/scenarios, or any return value specifics. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and might not know how to effectively use this listing tool beyond a trivial call.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by explicitly mentioning 'rules/scenarios', which maps to the with_rules and with_scenarios parameters, but that is also evident from the parameter descriptions. No additional 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 states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('Voximplant applications'), and mentions optional inclusion of rules/scenarios. It clearly indicates what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_scenarios or get_rules, which are related but distinct resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is for listing applications, but no explicit usage guidance is given.

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