rc_list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'list all apps,' but does not disclose potential pagination, sorting, or authentication requirements. However, for a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter context.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, what it lists, and the parameter's default behavior. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 schema already describes the project_id parameter, but the description adds context by mentioning it is a RevenueCat project ID and that it defaults from the RC_DEFAULT_PROJECT_ID environment variable. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 apps under a RevenueCat project, mentioning supported platforms (iOS, Android, web). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rc_list_projects (which lists projects) and rc_list_products (which lists products).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when needing to list apps within a project, but does not mention cases like checking all projects first or alternative tools for different resource types.

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