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 does disclose one real behavioral fact — that third-party packages are returned by default, so system apps are excluded unless requested — which is useful and not derivable from the schema. However, it says nothing about the requirement for an ADB-connected device, output format, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping detail is placed immediately after the action. It is efficiently sized, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 three-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin. It omits any explanation of the 'filter' parameter, the ADB device dependency implied by 'serial', and what the listing actually returns.

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 only 33%: 'serial' is documented in the schema, while 'filter' and 'include_system' have no descriptions. The parenthetical '(third-party by default)' does explain include_system's default behavior, but 'filter' remains completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('List installed packages') and clarifies the default scope with '(third-party by default)'. It reads distinctly from siblings like list_devices or current_app, though 'packages' versus the tool name 'apps' is a minor terminology wobble.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as open_app (to launch) or current_app (to inspect the foreground app). The agent must infer the context entirely from the name.

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