list_installed_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the return is a large list with no pagination or filtering, which tells the agent to expect volume and post-process. However, it says nothing about ordering, format, or cost of repeated calls.

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 with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the operational hint follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, no annotations, and no parameters, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly: what it returns and that it will be large. It could be marginally more complete by naming the downstream tool for launching a found package.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning needs explaining, and the description correctly implies no filtering capability exists.

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: listing installed packages. It is clearly distinct from sibling list tools like list_files or get_element_tree. It only lacks an explicit contrast with those siblings to reach a 5.

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 advice 'grep it for the app you want' implies the intended workflow of finding an app before launching it, but it never names launch_app or states when this tool should be preferred over, say, directly calling launch_app with a known package. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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