get_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch', which hints at a read operation, but does not explicitly state that this is safe, non-mutating, or describe pagination behavior, default sort order, or any permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without verbose explanations or redundancy. This is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description is too thin. It does not mention the return format, pagination behavior (despite having pagination-related parameters), or any default sorting. The agent is left without enough context to understand the tool's full behavior or expected output, which is particularly problematic for a listing endpoint.

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?

All parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how parameters interact or any defaults beyond the schema's 'first' default of 50.

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 'Fetch installed apps for the store' uses a specific verb (Fetch) and clearly identifies the resource (installed apps) and scope (the store). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_app' by specifying the plural form, indicating it lists multiple apps. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this tool fetches installed apps for the store, implying it is for listing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_app' (for a single app) or other get_* tools. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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