apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the data content and does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether any side effects occur, or if special permissions are needed. The passive phrasing 'The capture allowlist...' leaves the action implicit, offering no explicit behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that packs meaningful details (allowlist, bundle identifiers, allowlisted status, Electron app flag) without redundancy. It is front-loaded and compact, though a verb would make it structurally clearer as an action description.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides adequate insight into the returned content. However, it lacks any mention of when or why an agent would use this tool relative to its siblings, and it does not clarify whether this is a snapshot or a live listing, leaving moderate ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so by the rubric the baseline 4 applies. The description has no parameter-related content to add, but with no parameters there is nothing missing; the baseline is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource ('capture allowlist and the currently running apps') and enumerates specific attributes (bundle identifiers, allowlist status, Electron flag), but lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get'. It is clear what the tool returns, but the absence of a verb weakens the action clarity and does not distinguish it strongly from sibling tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (events, status, allow_app, deny_app). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any specific contexts that would prompt an agent to call this tool over others. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and content.

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