list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope ('visible to this API key') and the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or rate limits, which are common for list operations. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential information—action, scope, and return fields—with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly usable by an agent.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (which defines the return structure), the description covers the core purpose and scope. The only gap is the lack of explicit mention of pagination or response format, but these are likely minor for a simple listing tool and are partially covered by the output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to describe beyond what the (empty) schema already provides, so the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 action (List), the resource (apps), and the exact fields returned (id, bundle id, name, sku). This differentiates it from siblings like get_app (single app) and find_app_by_bundle_id (search by bundle ID), making the purpose unambiguous even without explicit sibling references.

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 this is the general-purpose listing tool for all apps, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like find_app_by_bundle_id or get_app. There is no mention of exclusions or context, though the tool's simplicity makes usage relatively obvious.

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