list_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation lists apps available to the authenticated account, effectively signaling a read-only scope. It also reveals the output fields, which is useful. It does not mention pagination or return format, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 that packs in the action, resource, scope, and output fields without unnecessary words. Every element serves a purpose and the structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It identifies the resource, scope, and returned fields. It could mention that the result is an array or include pagination behavior, but these are likely implicit for a list endpoint. The field enumeration helps compensate for the lack of an output schema.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe. A baseline score of 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Aptabase apps', with the scope 'available to the authenticated account'. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, name, appKey, ownership), making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools that focus on specific metrics.

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 usage is implied: users should call this tool to see all apps they have access to. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_app, nor any mention of when not to use it. Sibling names suggest the distinction but the description doesn't state it directly.

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