apps

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does flag the destructive operations by naming `clear (data)` and `uninstall`, which is the most important behavioral fact an agent needs. It says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation requirements, permissions, or what a successful action returns.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence that front-loads the common case (listing) before the actions, with no filler. The compression is near the point of losing clarity, but every clause carries 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the action vocabulary and a rough output shape (`name id`). It leaves gaps on required-vs-optional parameter behavior per action and on what happens to app data during `clear` versus `uninstall`.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter carries a description, so the description is the only source of meaning. It usefully enumerates the `action` values (install, stop, clear, uninstall) even though the schema declares no enum, and hints that `app` holds an identifier for listing but a file path for install — though that `file in app` phrasing is ambiguous about whether the file path goes into the `app` parameter.

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 states a concrete resource (apps) and enumerates the operations it supports: list, install, stop, clear, uninstall. This distinguishes it from siblings like `launch` or `shell`, which do not manage installation or app data. It loses a point because the terse backtick notation (`name id`) is cryptic on first read.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. whether `app` is required for `stop`/`clear`/`uninstall`), and no comparison to the `launch` sibling that also operates on apps. The agent must infer that omitting `action` yields a list.

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