apple_list_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the scope (the whole account) and the returned identity fields, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty-account behavior, or credential/auth requirements. Adequate for a trivial read-only list, 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?

Two short sentences, the scope and result stated first and the cross-tool ID semantics second. Nothing is wasted and it is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be repeated. For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and the downstream meaning of the returned ID, which is everything an agent needs.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the schema is fully covered anyway. The description still adds meaning by explaining that app_id maps to ascAppId, which the empty schema could never convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the apps in the App Store Connect account') and names the identifying fields it returns. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as apple_list_builds or apple_list_versions, but no other tool in the set lists apps, so confusion risk is low.

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 note that the returned app_id 'is the App ID (ascAppId) used by every other Apple tool' implicitly positions this as the entry point for Apple workflows, giving the agent a reason to call it first. There is no explicit when-not or alternative named, so it falls short of a 5.

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