list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and the purpose of the id, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or behavior with no parameters (e.g., returns all apps? limit defaults to 100?). Some behavioral context is added beyond the schema but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence front-loads the action ('List') and resource ('apps'), and the second sentence provides key guidance. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description helpfully lists the returned fields. The parameters are fully described in the schema. It is missing information about error handling, authentication, and whether the list is ordered, but for a list tool with optional parameters, it is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about the parameters (limit and bundle_id) beyond what the schema already provides, but it does add context about the return value (id usage). Therefore, parameter semantics are adequately supported by the schema.

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 it lists apps and specifies the returned fields (id, name, bundleId, sku, primaryLocale). It implies its role as a data source for other tools by mentioning using the returned id as app_id, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_app (which retrieves a single app) or list_builds.

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 advises using the returned id for other tools, implying when to use it (to get app IDs). However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., use get_app for detailed info on a specific app). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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