list_installed_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List installed apps' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as permissions required, output format, whether it's real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'installed apps' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding its functionality and use.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No parameters are present to require explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 installed apps' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_installed_apps'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what 'installed apps' means in this context (e.g., system applications, user applications, containerized apps) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_app_store' or 'list_containers' that might overlap conceptually.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'list_app_store' (which might list available apps) or 'list_containers' (which might list containerized apps), leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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