search_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns app-related metadata (names, package ids, categories, launchability) which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention any limitations (e.g., pagination, ordering, rate limits). The overall behavior is simple enough that the read-only nature is reasonably inferred, but explicit confirmation is missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states the action, scope, and key output details efficiently. 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 search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose and hints at the output structure, but it omits parameter semantics and explicit usage context. The tool's simplicity keeps it adequate, but the missing param documentation prevents full completeness.

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 schema has zero description coverage (0%) for its four parameters (deviceId, query, limit, onlyLaunchable), and the tool description does not explain any of them. The mention of 'including app names, package ids, categories, and launchability' refers to output fields, not parameter meanings. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving agents to guess parameter purposes.

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 the tool searches all apps exposed by a discovered media appliance, listing specific output fields (app names, package ids, categories, launchability). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'discover_apps' (which likely discovers apps) and 'search_content' (which searches media content) by specifying the resource and scope.

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 implies the tool is for searching apps on an already-discovered appliance ('discovered media appliance'), which nudges toward appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'discover_apps' or mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be paired/discovered) or exclusions. Context is present but not made explicit.

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