list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what 'available' means, whether it returns details like IDs or just names, or any rate limits. Since annotations carry the safety burden and the description is consistent, a 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description states what it does but omits details about the return value (e.g., format, whether it returns names or IDs, sorting, or pagination). Since there is no output schema to fill this gap, the agent may be left guessing about the response structure, which is a notable omission for a tool whose entire purpose is to produce a list.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is given. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist, and it adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema (which is empty).

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 action ('Liste') and the resource ('les applications disponibles sur la TV'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from launch_app by focusing on listing rather than launching, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to discover apps before launching them, nor does it contrast with launch_app or any other sibling. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.

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