zdx_list_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only'. It adds behavioral context about return structure and filtering, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose and return format, then adds filtering and integration notes. No redundant information.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, filtering options, and next steps. It lacks details on pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite low schema description coverage (20%), the description explains the 'since', 'geo_id', 'location_id', and 'department_id' parameters by mentioning filtering by location, department, geo, and the 'since' hours window. This compensates for the schema gaps.

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 it lists active ZDX applications, specifies the return fields (id, name, ZDX score, impact signals), and mentions filtering capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zdx_list_devices or zdx_list_locations.

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 indicates it is read-only and that returned IDs can be used with other tools for details. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear for listing applications before drilling down.

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