apps__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing safety and idempotency information. The description adds the endpoint hint [GET /v1/apps] and the app ID usage context, but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination handling or rate limits. Given annotation coverage, the description provides minimal added value.

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?

Two concise sentences plus the endpoint in brackets. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence states the action, the second provides actionable guidance. No fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema) and the thoroughness of the schema descriptions, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explanation of pagination, filtering capabilities, or how to use the include parameter for related data. The schema covers many details, but the description could provide a higher-level usage pattern. It is minimally viable.

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?

All 16 parameters have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not exceed it.

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 it lists all apps in the App Store Connect account and directs the agent to start here when needing an app ID. The verb 'List' and resource 'apps' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apps__get, though the guidance to start here implies it's the primary listing tool.

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 advises 'Start here when you need an app ID,' which gives a clear starting point for finding an app identifier. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as apps__get for retrieving a single app once the ID is known. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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