List Catalog Apps

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (manifests with appClass, authMode, connectionFields, widgets), clarifying that it reveals app installation/connection requirements. No contradictions found. The description complements rather than repeats the annotations.

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 concise sentence that packs useful detail (installable scoping + manifest fields) with no wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the action. Slight room to add the when-to-use context, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is appropriately tight.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It names the resource, scope (installable), and return structure. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from noting the full return shape or count/pagination behavior, and its relationship to kilango_list_app_installations. Minor gaps, but adequate for a simple list operation.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameters to document. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than input semantics. No param info is needed here.

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 'List installable apps with their manifests' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (installable apps), and specifies the manifest structure returned (appClass, authMode, connectionFields, widgets). It distinguishes from siblings like kilango_list_portals (lists portals) and kilango_list_app_installations (lists installed apps), though it shares a 'list' pattern. A 4 is appropriate since it's clear but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely-related kilango_get_catalog_app or kilango_list_app_installations.

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 this is the tool for browsing the app catalog before installation, and the manifest content hints at screening apps. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The distinction from kilango_list_app_installations (installed vs installable) and kilango_get_catalog_app (individual vs list) is implicit but not stated, so it's adequate but not directive.

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