list_app_store

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

The description provides zero behavioral information beyond the basic action implied by 'List.' With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure but fails to mention anything about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, format of returned data, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to provide necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just two words, but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the first and only phrase), it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The minimal length doesn't earn its place with useful content beyond the tool name itself.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides only the most basic action statement, this description is completely inadequate. For a tool that presumably returns some kind of listing data, the description should explain what 'app store' means in this context, what format the listing takes, and any important behavioral characteristics. The current description leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool's operation.

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 has zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, though the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.

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 'List app store' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'app store' refers to, what kind of listing is performed, or what information is returned. While it includes a verb ('List') and resource ('app store'), it lacks meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'list_installed_apps' or 'list_files'.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools. With multiple listing tools available (list_certificates, list_containers, list_databases, etc.), the agent receives no help in selecting this specific tool for listing app store content.

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