Inspect accessible Nextcloud apps

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that access levels are 'safe' and that it works without admin APIs, which is not implied by readOnlyHint. It does not describe return format, but the output schema handles that; no contradictions with annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys purpose and key constraints without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the lack of parameters makes it appropriately concise.

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 that there are no parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. The presence of an output schema likely covers return values, and the tool's simplicity (zero params) means the description is complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the description adds meaning by clarifying the scope (user-visible apps and safe bridge access levels), which is essential since the schema is empty. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 tool inventories user-visible apps and bridge access levels, specifying the resource (Nextcloud apps) and the action (inspect). It distinguishes itself from siblings such as get_nextcloud_capabilities and probe_native_nextcloud_mcp by emphasizing 'user-visible' and 'safe bridge access levels without administrator APIs'.

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 use for checking accessible apps and safe access, distinguishing from admin-API-based tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling context provides some contrast.

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