App Entry List

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states that this is a read-only listing, what host/port/profile context it needs, or whether it hits a network session — it only explains the only_hidden toggle. For a connection-parameterized tool, this is a significant behavioral 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?

Two tight clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the flag semantics; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-written for a five-parameter tool, but as pure concision it succeeds.

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 values need not be described, and schema text covers most connection parameters. However, the description says nothing about what an 'entry' is, how it relates to sibling listing tools, or the read-only nature, which leaves real gaps for a tool in a crowded family.

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 80%, and the description precisely fills the single undocumented parameter by explaining that only_hidden=True restricts results to hidden entries — semantics not present in the schema for that field. It adds no extra meaning for host/port/scheme/profile, but those are already documented.

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 verb+resource (list app entries) but '入口' is ambiguous — it could mean launcher/desktop shortcuts or app registration entries, and siblings like app_desktop_list, app_service_list, and app_list make that distinction critical. Nothing in the description tells the agent how this differs from those siblings, leaving the tool only loosely identifiable.

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 only guidance is the behavior of the only_hidden flag; there is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite several closely-named sibling listing tools. The agent must guess its place among the app_* family.

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