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. It discloses case-insensitive matching and that the return value includes Android packages or iOS bundle IDs. The example reveals the output shape. It doesn't mention side effects, but this is a search operation, and the behavior described aligns with a safe read-only tool. Missing details like what happens on no match are minor.

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 sentences plus an example, with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the purpose and provides a concrete output example that aids understanding. 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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, the description does not explain the required 'device' parameter, and the example mismatches the schema's required two parameters. This incomplete parameter guidance makes the description only partially adequate for a 2-parameter tool with no annotation support.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The example clarifies 'query' as the app name, but the 'device' parameter is never explained and the example even omits it, despite being required. This is a notable gap and could mislead an agent into calling the tool with only one argument.

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 installed apps by name, with a specific verb and resource. The example with TikTok and its package/bundle ID makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from list_apps (which would list all apps) and launch_app (which launches).

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 usage: when you need to find a specific app by name, use search_apps. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_apps for enumerating all apps, but the search-by-name behavior makes the intended context clear. No exclusions are stated, but the example provides a concrete use case.

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