computer_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by distinguishing running from installed apps and noting installed apps are launchable targets. It does not, however, describe output format, ordering, or any platform-specific edge cases.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and then provides the optional mode. Every word earns its place, and the description is immediately scannable.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation knowledge. It does not specify the exact return shape, but the absence of an output schema makes a bit more detail potentially useful. Still, the core usage is clear and complete enough.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by tying the 'installed' parameter to the behavior: including installed apps for launchable targets. Since this is the only parameter and its effect is clear from the description, this is strong but not exhaustive.

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 a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('macOS applications'), and two clearly distinguished scopes: running apps vs installed apps. The phrase 'for launchable targets' also hints at downstream launch use, helping differentiate from sibling launch tools like computer_open or computer_run without naming them.

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 when to use the tool: when you need running applications, and when you need installed launchable targets. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name any alternative tool. The guidance is useful but only implied, not explicit.

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