list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-style listing behavior and reveals the permission-related filter ('which ones this server is allowed to open'), which adds useful context. However, it does not mention device-connectivity requirements, possible failures, or other edge behavior, though the operation is low-risk.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part earns its place: the primary listing behavior and the additional permission-related output detail.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers its core behavior. However, it lacks guidance on the 'device' parameter and when to use the tool, so it is only minimally complete for reliable invocation.

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 is one optional 'device' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain it. The parameter name and title ('Device') give some hint, and 'the phone' in the description implies a device context, but the description adds no real semantic value about how to choose or format the device value.

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 states a clear action ('List') and resource ('apps installed on the phone'), and adds a meaningful output nuance: which apps the server is allowed to open. It is clearly distinct from open_app, but it does not explicitly compare itself to any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent could infer it is useful before calling open_app, but the description never states that or provides any exclusion criteria.

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