albyhub_list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying API call ('Hits GET /api/apps') and discloses the typical returned fields, including a caveat that entries 'typically' include these, indicating possible variability. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, the verb 'List' and the lack of side effects implicitly convey this.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then enriched with field details and a use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the endpoint, typical response contents, and the practical use case. The sibling tools are clearly different (get balances, list channels, etc.), so no further context is needed.

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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter details to clarify. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by describing the output data structure (fields like name, pubkey, scope, daily budget), which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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 tool lists NWC connections/sub-wallets ('apps') on the Hub, using the specific verb 'List' and a precise resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning the included fields (name, pubkey, scope, daily budget, creation timestamp) and the use case of inventorying connections and budget caps.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to inventory what's connected to your Hub and what each connection's budget cap is.' This implies when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Still, it offers direct guidance on the tool's intended scenario.

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