list_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output includes name and package ID and that query filters against package ID, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential failure modes (e.g., no apps found, permission issues). For a simple list, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two short, front-loaded paragraphs with a clear args section. Every sentence earns its place, and the primary purpose is stated first.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics sufficiently. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the query parameter, but the description adds the crucial detail that matching occurs against the package ID, not the name. This adds meaning beyond the schema's generic text.

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 clearly states the tool lists installed apps with readable name and package ID, and explicitly ties its purpose to resolving uncertainty about app names or failures of open_app. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_app and read_screen.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when unsure of an app's name or when open_app fails. This directly addresses the selection problem and gives a concrete use case, leaving little to inference.

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