Listar aplicaciones

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a listing operation, and the description adds useful scope (it reads the user's own machine, not a remote registry). However, it says nothing about cost or latency of enumerating installed apps, what happens when the list is empty, or whether results are cached — the kind of context that matters for a machine-scanning tool.

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 with zero filler: the first states what it does, the second states when to use it. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-param read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what and when adequately. The minor gap is that the return shape (bare names? paths? display names?) is never hinted at, which matters slightly for deciding whether filtro's output feeds directly into abrir_aplicacion.

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 single parameter 'filtro' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) including that it matches by name and is optional. The description adds no semantics about matching behavior (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ("Lista") plus specific resource ("las aplicaciones instaladas en el computador del usuario"), which an agent can immediately distinguish from abrir_aplicacion or saludar. Scope is stated, not implied.

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?

"Usala antes de abrir una app si no conoces su nombre exacto" gives a concrete trigger condition and implicitly routes the agent away from abrir_aplicacion when the app name is unknown. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly or stating when not to call it (e.g. when the name is already known), so it falls just 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.