store_developer

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 transparently describes the paginated response, the compact summary fields, the compatible flag tied to hardware, and the has_more indicator. It does not cover edge cases or side effects, but for a read-only listing tool, this is substantial transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential details. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists. The description covers the core behavior, output shape, and pagination, but leaves the sort parameter undefined and does not explicitly state how offset/limit interact with pagination. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use all features correctly.

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 enriches the hardware parameter by explaining its role in the compatible flag, and implies limit/offset through 'paginated' and has_more. However, it fails to explain the 'sort' parameter's options or meaning, and developer_id is only implied, not explicitly tied to the parameter. Given 0% schema coverage, this is a partial but incomplete compensation.

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 specifies a clear action ('List'), a precise resource ('every app published by one developer'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like store_search and store_collection by focusing on a single developer's catalog. It also mentions pagination and the output format, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the tool's use case: when you need all apps for a given developer_id, with optional hardware filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, though the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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