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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals default behavior (system apps included, internal bundles excluded), output contents, the effect of includeInternal with real examples, and that no session is needed. It could add explicit read-only intent, but 'List' and the absence of side effects are sufficiently clear.

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?

Four information-dense sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The statistical iPad example and bundle names are slightly elaborative but help set expectations; no filler or repetition. Could be trimmed, but each sentence earns relevance.

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?

The description is complete for a read-oriented list tool: it states scope, output fields, default exclusions, the optional includeInternal behavior, and session requirements. The udid parameter is already documented in the schema, and no output schema otherwise exists, so the return-field statement fills the gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains why includeInternal matters (internal XPC helpers/view services are otherwise filtered out) and gives a concrete scale example. This goes beyond the schema's terse 'Include hidden system bundles...' note.

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 opens with 'List the apps installed on an iOS device' — a specific verb and resource — and immediately distinguishes this tool by including system apps that 'the raw listing's default hides.' It also states the returned fields (bundleId, name, type), making its purpose unmistakable and separating it from generic app-list siblings.

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?

It gives clear context: list installed iOS apps, system apps included by default, internal bundles excluded, and no automation session required. It does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., device_list_apps) or state when not to use it, but the iOS-specific scope and filtering semantics provide directional guidance.

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