asc_list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement for environment variables (authentication) and hints that the returned id is used elsewhere, but does not discuss side effects, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a list operation, basic safety can be inferred, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 action and return value, followed by usage guidance (env vars and next step). Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (no input parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it does, what it returns, prerequisites, and how to use the result. However, it lacks details on whether the list is complete or paginated, and does not describe the exact format of the returned data. For a list tool, this is mostly sufficient but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by noting that the tool requires specific environment variables (not parameters) and that no explicit arguments are needed. This is clear and helpful, earning a top score.

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 'List the apps on your App Store Connect account' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the returned fields (id, name, bundle id) and mentions the required environment variables, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like asc_check_submission.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve an app id for use with asc_get_rejections. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention any alternatives among siblings, which would justify a higher score.

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