cigchat_installed_mini_app_list

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required 'Manage Team' scope and the GET endpoint, adding context about authentication. However, it does not mention response format, pagination behavior, or any side effects, leaving gaps for a complete behavioral picture.

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: the first states the purpose, the second notes the required scope. No unnecessary words or repetition, 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?

For a simple list operation, the description covers the core purpose and auth requirement. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain return structure or pagination defaults. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is adequate yet not rich.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (page, limit, title), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or clarify parameter interplay, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get the list of installed mini apps' with the HTTP endpoint, providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on installed mini apps, unlike other list tools for tags, templates, products, etc.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional information is the required 'Manage Team' scope, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. With many sibling list tools available, there is no differentiation or exclusions provided.

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