list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY requirement, zero credit cost, and the exact JSON return shape. For a read-only listing tool, this additional auth, cost, and output context is substantial.

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 definition front-loads the core purpose, then usage prerequisites, then operational details and the return shape. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the density is appropriate for a tool an agent must call before several others.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return structure, and it does so explicitly. Combined with prerequisite guidance and sibling differentiation, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is empty and schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description cannot add parameter semantics beyond confirming the tool takes no input; baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 (List) and resource (registered websites and mobile apps) with scope (authenticated PushNotif workspace) and return contents (active subscriber counts and credit balance). It distinguishes itself from list_subscribers by explicitly directing device-token inspection there.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it first as a prerequisite before send_push_notification, schedule_push_notification, get_integration_guide, and configure_inapp_banner to obtain a valid app_id. It also names list_subscribers as the alternative for inspecting individual device tokens, covering when-not-to-use.

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