application_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List applications in a unit' and does not disclose default behavior, pagination semantics, filtering behavior, authorization requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, which is strong for conciseness. It is slightly too terse to fully orient an agent, but it avoids unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out important contextual details such as return shape, pagination behavior, and any access constraints. For a tool with five parameters, a one-clause description is not enough to fully guide an agent.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters including sort, limit, offset, contains, and unit. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the contextual phrase 'in a unit,' which aligns with the required unit parameter, so the baseline of 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 specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('applications'), and a clear scope ('in a unit'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like application_count and application_get, which clearly serve different operations.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as application_count, application_get, or other list tools. The context implies a listing use case, but there is no stated condition, exclusion, or pointer to a sibling for different needs.

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