app_pool_list

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

The annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the burden is lower. The description adds a [READ] tag, explicitly states that the result is paginated, and lists the returned fields, providing useful behavior beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the READ tag and has zero fluff. It packs the action, resource, fields, and pagination into a compact, unmistakable frame, and every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the output fields, pagination, and read-only nature. The target parameter is left to the schema, which already defines it, so there is no substantive gap. It stops short of a 5 only because it does not mention the relation to separately paginated siblings or any optional filtering behavior, though these are not necessarily expected.

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 for all three params, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of pagination selectively addresses limit/offset but adds nothing about the target parameter. No additional meaning is given that isn't already available in the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ("List") and resource ("published application pools") and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, farm, enabled, executable path). It is clear and concise, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling pool_list, so it leaves a slight ambiguity for an agent deciding which list tool to use.

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 communicates what the tool does but not when to use it relative to alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over pool_list, pool_get, or other sibling tools, and no mention of conditions like 'use this to list all published app pools' or exclusions. The purpose implies a use case, but the boundary is left to the agent to infer.

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