crosspad_list_apps_source

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral framing that this operates by scanning source files (a lighter, possibly slower, less-complete operation than registry reads), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. The description aligns with and complements the annotation without contradiction.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and method; the second provides sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information (what it does + how it differs) is front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple list tool with a single optional enum parameter, a read-only annotation, and an output schema present. With the descriptions of scope (REGISTER_APP() source scanning) and sibling differentiation (vs registry read), the tool is fully characterized. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so the description doesn't need to cover that.

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 single platform parameter has full enum documentation in the schema with values pc/idf/arduino/all and a default of 'all'. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the parameter's meaning (platform/ecosystem filtering) is reasonably inferable from the enum values themselves. The description doesn't add parameter specifics, but with one self-explanatory enum param, the schema carries most of the load.

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+resource ('List apps registered via REGISTER_APP() macro') with a clear method ('by scanning source files'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from crosspad_apps_list by contrasting source-scanning vs package-registry reading, which is strong sibling differentiation.

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 sibling alternative (crosspad_apps_list) and describes the key difference in underlying mechanism—scanning source files vs reading package registry. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to choose this tool over its closest sibling. It also identifies the specific REGISTER_APP() macro as the registration mechanism being searched for.

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