app_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the actions (list, enable, disable) without explaining the effects (e.g., immediate vs. requiring restart, permissions needed, or what 'enable/disable' entails). The description does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving significant behavioral transparency gaps.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and actions. Every word 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 that the tool has only two parameters (one required, one optional with enum) and an output schema exists, a brief description may be adequate. However, the description lacks any mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or scope of the 'list' operation (e.g., system-wide or user-specific). It is minimally complete but misses opportunities to add helpful context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying the 'action' parameter's enum values (list, enable, disable) and that 'app' is specified by name. However, it does not provide details like the format of the app name or whether the 'app' parameter is required for enable/disable (implied but not explicit). This is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 the tool's dual function: 'List all apps' and 'enable/disable a specific app by name.' It identifies the specific resource (apps) and the actions, making the purpose unambiguous. There are no sibling tools with overlapping functionality, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 implies usage (list or manage a specific app) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Since there are no directly competing siblings, the lack of exclusions is less critical, but the description does not proactively guide the agent on context.

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