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

The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'source references' hints at the return content. However, with no annotations beyond the title, the description does not disclose pagination, auth requirements, or potential side effects, leaving the agent to infer safety.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the output. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. It lacks detail about output format, pagination, or ordering, but given the simple scope and lack of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description is not required to document anything beyond the schema, which already fully covers the empty parameter set.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your saved apps') and clarifies that source references are included. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like apps_search or apps_read.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as apps_search, apps_read, or apps_build. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'saved apps,' and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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