crosspad_apps_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope profile. The description adds useful context by explaining the aggregation behavior across platform repos and the 'no Python required' implementation detail. It doesn't describe return format, but the presence of an output schema shifts that burden away.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, how it differs, and the specific alternative. The key differentiator is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 single-optional-parameter read-only list tool with a 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is fully adequate. The sibling differentiation and aggregation semantics cover the ambiguity risks inherent in a registry-aware tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter (show_all) is fully documented in the schema. The description's mention that it lists apps and includes compatibility filtering aligns with the schema; it doesn't add detail beyond the schema's own description of show_all, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (list), the resource (apps from the crosspad-apps registry), and the mechanism (aggregating installation status across detected platform repos). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool crosspad_list_apps_source, making differentiation unambiguous.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (crosspad_list_apps_source) and explains the key difference: this reads JSON from the registry, while the sibling scans REGISTER_APP() in source code. It also notes 'no Python required,' giving a clear practical distinction for when to choose this over the source-scanning alternative.

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