cyd_installed_apps_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'Observation, L1' implies a read-only, low-impact operation, which provides some safety signal, and 'List' reinforces a non-mutating action. However, it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, nor does it mention filesystem access, output format, or any side-effect-free guarantee.

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 very brief and uses no filler. However, it frontloads metadata labels ('Machine-specific' and 'Observation, L1') before the core verb phrase, which slightly delays the most actionable information; still, each phrase contributes context and the overall length is appropriate.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description conveys purpose but leaves the return value uncertain beyond 'list of apps'. It doesn't describe what 'Home pin state' means, nor does it mention whether results are app names, metadata, or another structure. The tool is a simple observation action, but the lack of any behavioral or output context is a notable gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters and a 100% schema description coverage with nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this dimension is strong; the description doesn't need to explain parameters and does not introduce ambiguity.

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 clear resource ('MicroPython apps installed on the microSD'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('including Home pin state'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'cyd_apps_list', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'cyd_apps_list' or 'cyd_shortcuts_list'. It labels the tool as 'Observation, L1' and 'Machine-specific (cyd)', but does not state when it is the right choice or mention any exclusion criteria.

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