quest_app_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default filter behavior and allowed filter values, which is useful. However, it does not mention any permissions, side effects, or return format, leaving the read-only nature to be inferred from the word 'list' rather than stated.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Information is front-loaded: the core purpose comes first, followed by parameter details. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 2-parameter listing tool, the description covers the essential behavior and filter options. The missing explanation of device_id is a minor gap, but the overall context (Quest app listing) makes the tool's function clear. The lack of output schema is mitigated by the simple nature of the operation, though a bit more detail on return format would be helpful.

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 description explains the 'filter' parameter with its default value and valid options, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the 'device_id' parameter is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for both parameters. It partially does, but the gap for device_id prevents a higher score.

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's purpose: 'List installed apps.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the filter options (sideloaded, system, all) further clarify the scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like quest_app_info, which presumably targets a single app, and quest_install/quest_uninstall.

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 provides useful context on the filter parameter, including the default value and allowed options, which implies when to use the tool (e.g., to list only sideloaded apps). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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