listStationAppAssignments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context by specifying the required scope ('stations:read') and indicating it's a read-only operation ('[READ-ONLY]'), which covers safety and permission aspects. However, it lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or response format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by API endpoint and scope details in a single, efficient sentence. Every element (action, resource, endpoint, scope, read-only note) adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and zero waste.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough by covering purpose, endpoint, scope, and read-only nature. However, it could improve by mentioning the return format or any limitations, but this is not critical for a simple read operation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'stationId' clearly documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 clearly states the specific action ('Gets app assignments') and resource ('for a station'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like listStations (which lists stations) or listStationGroupAppAssignments (which focuses on station groups). The verb 'Gets' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool by specifying the required scope ('stations:read'), but it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it doesn't differentiate from listStationGroupAppAssignments, which might be a related alternative.

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