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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the tool only sees what the remote can address, names the returned fields, and warns about the related launch call silently doing nothing on tvOS 27. Minor gaps around error cases and pairing state exist, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Three focused sentences with no wasted words: purpose first, then sibling comparison, then actionable warning. Every sentence earns its place and the key scope distinction is 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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return content, the remote-specific perspective, and the relevant sibling tools. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the schema already describes udid as 'Apple TV UDID or name'. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond referencing the same TV, so baseline 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 and resource: 'List the apps installed on an Apple TV'. It also clarifies the scope (as the remote sees them) and names the exact return fields (bundle id and display name), and explicitly distinguishes itself from ios_list_apps.

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 explicit guidance on when to prefer ios_list_apps over this tool, and points to ios_launch_app for foregrounding an app. It even warns about the tvOS 27 launch quirk, leaving no ambiguity about the alternatives.

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