list_public_appsThe full Apps catalog that ships in Pocket Agent: id, label, what each app does, its slash command, and its URL. Apps are the workflows personas run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. The name 'list' implies read-only, but not spelled out.
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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and output details. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully informs the agent about what the tool returns and its purpose. Context about apps being workflows personas run adds helpful background.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by detailing the output fields, which is beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 the full Apps catalog, specifying included fields (id, label, what each app does, slash command, URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_public_personas and describe_pocket_agent.
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 implies usage for retrieving the app catalog but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use, nor mentions alternatives. Siblings exist but no direct comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
All four tools have clearly distinct purposes: describe_pocket_agent gives a product overview, get_persona retrieves details of one persona, list_public_apps lists all apps, and list_public_personas lists all personas. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: describe_pocket_agent, get_persona, list_public_apps, list_public_personas. No mixing of styles.
With 4 tools, the count is slightly low for a product that likely has more functionality, but it remains within the typical 3-15 range and covers the essential read/info operations.
The tool surface covers basic info retrieval but lacks deeper details (e.g., no tool to describe a single app fully) and any action-oriented tools (create, update). Gaps exist for users who need more than a read-only reference.