dero_tela_list_apps

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: it is a 'Composite' operation, triggered by an 'in-process scan of the newest chain contracts', and the 'first call triggers a ~10s one-time discovery scan (cached afterward)'. It also explains that index_meta discloses scan coverage, making result limitations transparent.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when to call, input requirements, and output shape. It front-loads the core answer, includes only necessary detail, and the output code block is compact and informative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides a full output shape and key behavioral caveats (first-call latency, caching, index_meta coverage transparency). It also clearly situates the tool relative to siblings, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both the schema and description document query as an optional case-insensitive filter and limit with default 50/max 200. The description adds usage context and examples but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'list/browse the TELA apps discovered on-chain' and explicitly answers the question 'what TELA apps exist?'. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming dero_durl_to_scid and tela_inspect as the tools for exact dURL or SCID lookup, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart.

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?

There is an explicit 'When to call' section with concrete user intents ('what TELA apps are there', 'show me TELA games', 'is there a TELA app about X'), and clear exclusions: 'For an exact dURL use dero_durl_to_scid; to inspect a specific SCID use tela_inspect.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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