List running apps

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful scope detail ('currently running, non-background') but reveals nothing about output format, ordering, or the open-world nature of the result.

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?

One sentence conveys the action, scope, and output in a compact, front-loaded way. Every word earns its place.

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 tool, this is nearly complete: it specifies the output is names of running non-background applicationsholový and annotations confirm safety. The only small gap is the exact output format, but the description's wording strongly implies a list of strings.

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 are zero parameters肯 with an empty schema, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 has a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('names of currently running (non-background) applications'). It differentiates from list_processes by focusing on application names and excluding background processes, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you need names of running applications. It gives no explicit exclusions or comparisons with siblings like list_processes or get_frontmost_app, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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