List apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful beyond-schema context: the response is a catalogue with per-app purpose, offered models, and a recommended model keyed to GPU memory, and that supplying `app` switches to an installed-software view. It does not mention whether results vary by project or account, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 a parenthetical enumeration; the core catalogue purpose is front-loaded and the parameter hint trails it, which is the right order. The colon-and-clause structure is slightly dense, and the fragment phrasing costs a little clarity, but there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile. What remains for an agent to decide correctly — what the catalogue contains, what each entry tells you, and how to drill into installed software — is all present. Nothing essential to invoking this zero-required-parameter read tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `app` and `package` are already documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's "Give `app` for the software installed" largely restates the schema's "One app, to also see what's installed in it" and says nothing about the `package` parameter or the app+package combination. No added semantic value over the 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 identifies the resource precisely and enumerates the concrete catalogue entries (basic, datascience, chat, imagegen, modelapi, voice) plus what each entry exposes: purpose, offered models, and a per-GPU-memory recommendation. It is not a tautology of the name/title and no sibling tool covers app catalogues, so it is distinguishable. It falls short of a 5 because it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement of what the call does.

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?

"Give `app` for the software installed" is the only usage steer and it is tied to a single parameter, implying a drill-down pattern but never stating it. There is no explicit when-to-use framing relative to siblings (e.g., before launch_machine or create_endpoint to pick an image), and no when-not-to-use guidance. Usage must be inferred.

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