App List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one high-value behavioral trait: the appName vs name distinction and the exact failure ("installed app not found") for getting it wrong. However, it says nothing about authentication/session requirements, connection behavior for host/port/scheme/profile, or rate limits, leaving sizable behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the one operational detail that actually matters. No filler, and the warning about the wrong identifier is placed where an agent will read it before calling downstream app_* tools.

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 task is a simple read and an output schema exists, so return shapes need not be re-explained; the description's mention of appName/name earns its place by adding the downstream-selection semantics. Connection/authentication context is thin, but for a simple listing tool the definition is close to complete.

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 100% with all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about these parameters — it only discusses output fields — so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("列出已安装的应用" — list installed apps), which cleanly separates it from siblings like app_store_list or app_status. It never names a sibling it should be preferred over, so it stops short of full differentiation, but an agent can identify the operation immediately.

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?

It implicitly defines this tool's role as the discovery step feeding every other app_* tool, and states the precondition (must use appName from this output) concretely. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance, so it is clear context rather than complete routing.

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