List Apps & Available Updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable context: it specifies the version scope (24.10+), discloses that it also reports Docker backend status, and highlights the update availability fields. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. The 'key part' emphasis is a helpful structural cue, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 moderate complexity (1 optional param, read-only, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed (apps, state, version, update status), the version requirement, and the distinction from the closest sibling. The output schema handles return structure, so no further return details are needed.

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 only parameter (response_format) is fully described in the input schema, covering 100% of schema description coverage. The description itself does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema already provides full context, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: installed TrueNAS apps. It distinguishes from the closely related sibling tool truenas_check_updates by explicitly stating it is the app-level counterpart, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus truenas_check_updates: this covers apps, while check_updates only covers the base OS. This explicit comparison provides clear usage guidance and an alternative, fulfilling the highest bar.

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