List App Deeplinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuine value by defining the source priority (shortcut > resolved > catalog > discovered) and ranking ('best first'), which is non-obvious context. However, it says nothing about the safety profile, whether results are cached, or how many links are returned, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an annotation-free tool.

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?

One front-loaded clause states the purpose and ranking, followed by a compact legend of source tiers. Every element carries information, though the run-on source list with nested parenthetical is dense and slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. But for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on how to identify the target app or device, which is a real completeness gap even though the purpose and ordering are well covered.

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% across four parameters (device, package, app_name, package_name), so the schema does not compensate. The description never explains these parameters or how app identity should be supplied (e.g., package vs app_name vs package_name); the stray 'pkg' in the URL example is incidental, not documentation.

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 fragment 'Deep links into an app, best first' clearly conveys that this tool retrieves deep links for an app and returns them in ranked order. The specific resource and the ordering behavior are stated. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resolve_deeplink or open_deeplink, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied. The mention that a shortcut link can be opened 'with open_deeplink' gives a weak pointer to a sibling, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this listing tool versus resolve_deeplink/open_deeplink, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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