List App Deeplinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well by disclosing that each entry is probe-resolved on the device and explaining the resolved=true semantics. It doesn't cover side effects, but for a read-only listing operation that is a minor gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs meaningful detail (registered filters, curated entries, probe resolution) with no wasted words.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The core behavior is described, but the complete absence of parameter usage guidance is a significant gap for a tool with three optional, undocumented parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention device, package, or app_name at all. An agent cannot determine how to target a specific app or what combinations of parameters are valid.

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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (app deep links), then adds detail about what's included (registered VIEW intent filters plus curated entries) and the resolution status. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like resolve_deeplink and open_deeplink purely from the description.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The description only defines what the tool does, leaving an agent to infer when to call it versus a sibling like resolve_deeplink.

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