list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It includes the non-destructive nature ('Non-destructive'), which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or the structure of the returned list. Given the lack of an output schema, this leaves some ambiguity, but the statement is truthful and adds some value, warranting a 3.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that convey the purpose and non-destructive nature. There is zero wasted verbiage, and the important information is front-loaded. This is an ideal example of conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the action and scope, and adds the non-destructive trait. While it could mention the return format or authentication, these are reasonable gaps for a simple list operation. The sibling tools suggest this is a read operation, and the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). According to the scoring rules, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Lists all apps owned by the authenticated user.' It uses a specific verb ('lists') and resource ('apps') with a scope ('owned by the authenticated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_app or configure_app, which imply different operations.

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 context by specifying ownership by the authenticated user, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of similar tools like get_app_overview. However, the purpose is clear enough for an agent, so it earns a 4.

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