list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing the default filtering behavior (only_third_party=True shows only user-installed apps) and the rationale of avoiding an overwhelmingly large system list. It does not cover every edge case, but for a read-only listing operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 short sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the parameter behavior explained second. Every sentence earns its place; the rationale about avoiding a 300+ line system list is useful and not filler.

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 low complexity of the tool – two optional parameters and an output schema present – the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed and how the default filtering works. The only notable gap is the unmentioned serial parameter, but its title and the surrounding sibling tools make it recoverable. Overall, the definition is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains only_third_party's default and effect in detail, but the serial parameter is not described in prose, though its name and title make its purpose inferable. This partial coverage is adequate but not complete.

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 'Telepitett alkalmazasok csomagneveinek listaja' – a list of package names of installed applications – which clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (installed apps' package names). This distinguishes it from siblings like app_info or launch_app, which concern individual app details or actions.

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 explains that only_third_party defaults to True and therefore returns only user-installed apps rather than a 300+ line system list, giving concrete context for when the default setting is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to decide when a simple app list is needed.

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