get_app_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '列出...列表' implies a read-only enumeration, but it does not disclose ordering, permissions, or whether the result is plain package names versus richer objects. The behavior is largely inferable but not explicitly stated.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though at the cost of adding no supplementary context.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose. Missing only minor operational context such as result ordering or the system-app default when the flag is omitted.

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 100% and the single parameter include_system_apps is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not explain it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 specific verb and resource: listing the package names of installed apps on the device. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_device_info or get_memory_info by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling that might also enumerate apps.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions. The only scoping hint (system vs third-party apps) lives in the schema, not the description.

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