app_pool_list

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds contextual behavior: it enumerates the return fields, indicates pagination, and clarifies the target parameter's source ('from config.yaml'). This goes beyond what the annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear summary tagged with [READ], lists return fields, and then presents a clean Args section. No unnecessary repetition or fluff.

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 simple list tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters and specifies the returned fields. However, it does not detail the pagination mechanism (e.g., offset semantics, page size limits), which would be useful in absence of an output schema.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: limit (page size), offset (page offset), and target (Horizon target from config). These explanations add meaningful semantics over the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'published application pools', and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pool_list by specifying 'application pools' and the 'published' scope.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when listing published application pools with pagination—and provides context about the target parameter. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the resource name makes the usage context clear.

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