cyd_apps_list

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 does disclose that the list is 'fixed' and 'kept in the firmware', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the list is sorted, or any side effects (though listing is likely read-only). The description adds some value but leaves the return shape unspecified.

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?

Three short sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the scoping qualifier is immediate, and the sibling distinction is a single efficient sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what is listed, that it is machine-specific, and how to get the other kind of list. The only gap is the lack of any hint about the output format (e.g., JSON array of strings), but with no output schema and a simple list operation, this is a minor omission.

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 there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description's mention of 'ids' and 'fixed list' gives the agent a sense of what the output will contain, which is the only parameter-like semantic needed here. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('ids of the built-in views and native apps'), and a key scoping constraint ('Machine-specific (cyd)'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cyd_installed_apps_list, which lists installed MicroPython apps. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose statement.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (cyd_installed_apps_list) and the condition that selects it ('Installed MicroPython apps are listed by...'). This gives the agent a clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use rule, which is especially valuable given the large sibling list.

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