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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only enumeration and reveals the return fields, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, volume limits, or whether apps are user- or workspace-scoped. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and immediately followed by the workflow instruction. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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, the description sensibly summarises the returned fields (app_id + name), and with no parameters and no annotations there is little else an agent needs. Minor gaps around result size or ordering keep it from a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required to discover app ids.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list the registered apps) and even names the payload fields (app_id + name), which is unusually concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list_* tools, but its role as an app-id discovery tool is unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: call this first to discover valid app_id values, then pass one to other tools to scope results. That is a clear when-to-use directive with a stated purpose. It stops short of naming alternatives or conditions under which not to use it.

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