apps_list

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

The description marks the tool as read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also outlines the output fields, but lacks mention of potential pagination or performance characteristics. Without annotations, the description does an adequate job but could be more thorough.

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 three efficient sentences: first states purpose, second details output format, third gives sibling tool guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given no output schema or parameters, the description fully covers what the tool returns (manifest fields) and its scope (all micro-apps). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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 no parameters, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 4 applies as per calibration guidelines for 0-param tools.

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 lists micro-apps and details the manifest fields. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning apps_get and apps_run for related but different purposes.

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 explicitly notes this is a read-only operation and provides alternatives for getting details (apps_get) and executing apps (apps_run), giving clear context on when to use this tool.

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