list_running_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance ('from Hyprland's client list'), but says nothing about what a client entry contains or how running apps are identified (window vs. process), which would matter for interpreting results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the source qualifier in parentheses. No filler, no repetition of the tool name as a standalone clause.

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-arg, read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the essentials plus data provenance. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against list_windows and list_desktop_apps, which an agent working in a 130-tool namespace would want.

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 for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No misleading parameter language is present.

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 running GUI applications') and names the data source (Hyprland's client list), which goes beyond a bare restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_windows or list_desktop_apps, leaving the agent to infer that one is window-level and the other is installed .desktop entries.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can guess this is the tool for enumerating currently open GUI apps. No when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. list_windows for per-window details, list_processes for non-GUI processes) is given.

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