find_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the substring matching approach, which is useful, but omits whether this is a read-only lookup, how matches are ranked/limited, whether matching is case-sensitive, and whether results include icons or metadata.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the matching fields are front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the absence of any other documentation.

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 detail is not needed, and the query semantics are covered. However, with zero annotations the missing safety profile and match-behavior details keep this at minimum viable for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 the single 'query' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by stating it matches against name or bundle id via substring — a meaningful addition beyond the bare string type. Only the matching semantics (case, partial vs. exact) are unstated.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and states the matching fields (name or bundle id substring), but the resource is described as generic 'items' rather than 'apps' — the tool is named find_apps. This mismatch leaves ambiguity about whether non-app items are returned, though the bundle-id mention strongly implies app scope.

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 use this vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Siblings like list_backups or app_store_categories could plausibly overlap in an agent's mind, and nothing routes it.

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