list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this reads a local repo checkout rather than a live service, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or behavior when the repo path is invalid.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource, scope, and on-disk naming convention front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to move earlier.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against vbcs_list_applications and what the returned names are relative to.

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% and the single repo parameter is fully documented with fallback semantics and a pointer to list_repos. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 VBCS web app names") and even gives the on-disk shape (webApps/<name>), so the output is concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling vbcs_list_applications, which an agent could easily confuse for this.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The one piece of routing advice (use list_repos to see available repos) lives in the parameter schema, not the description, and the ambiguity versus vbcs_list_applications is left entirely unresolved.

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