list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing what the call yields (app names plus running state), which is behavior beyond the annotations. It does not mention cost, latency, or how many apps are enumerated, which keeps it below a 5.

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 filler, and the discovery use case is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs to make a selection decision.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it. The only omission, exact return shape, is minor given the stated contents.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and global rather than scoped to a named app.

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 names a specific verb ("Discover") and concrete resources ("app names and running state"), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_app_state. An agent knows exactly what this tool returns without opening any schema.

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?

It states the exact triggering condition ("when the target is unknown") and names the alternative with its own condition ("If the task names an app, start with get_app_state directly"). This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing rule against a real sibling.

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