list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operational scope (authenticated account), the action (listing), and the return fields (id, name, appKey, ownership). For a zero-parameter read-only list operation, this is adequate, though it does not mention pagination or potential errors.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource, includes scope and return fields, and contains no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only listing operation, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its account scoping. It is complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description sufficiently complements the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Aptabase apps') with a clear scope ('available to the authenticated account') and lists the returned fields (id, name, appKey, ownership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app (singular) and metrics-focused tools.

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 it: whenever you need to enumerate the apps available to the authenticated account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the sibling tool names and the plural 'List' make the use case clear.

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