list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds a useful platform-specific limitation (iOS only returns configured/common bundle IDs verified through Appium), but does not mention other behavioral aspects like permissions, read-only nature, or response format beyond what is implied.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a relevant limitation. No redundant filler or repetition of schema information.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential details. The iOS limitation is an important caveat. However, it could be more complete by mentioning when to use it versus similar tools, and by elaborating on the device parameter.

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 has one parameter (device) with no description, and the description itself does not elaborate on this parameter. The name 'device' is somewhat self-explanatory, but with 0% schema coverage, the description should have provided at least a hint about what values are expected (e.g., device ID).

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 lists installed apps, including human-readable names and package names/bundle IDs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_packages or search_apps, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions an iOS limitation but offers no context about when to prefer this over list_packages or search_apps.

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