app_pool_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by mentioning pagination behavior and that only 'published' pools are listed, which is a filter context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe any other behavioral traits such as output format or error conditions.

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 efficient, with a clear opening sentence and a concise args list. The '[READ]' prefix is somewhat redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, but overall the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers purpose, parameters, pagination, and the fields returned. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it lacks usage exclusions or alternative references that would make it fully comprehensive.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters (coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining all three parameters: limit (page size), offset (page offset), and target (Horizon target, default from config). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type/default information.

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's purpose: 'List published application pools' with the specific fields returned (id, name, farm, enabled, executable path). This is a specific verb (List) + resource (application pools), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'pool_list'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pool_list' or 'pool_get'. The description simply states what it does without explaining when it should be preferred or if it has exclusions.

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