apple_list_experiments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read and 'with state and dates' discloses part of the response shape, which is real added value. However, it says nothing about pagination (notable given an apple_get_next_page sibling exists), rate limits, or auth requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the parenthetical clarification earning its place. No filler, though it is short enough that the missing routing/identifier detail is a content gap rather than a length problem.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and partially covers returns ('state and dates'). It still leaves the appId format and pagination behavior undocumented, which an agent needs before a first correct call.

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?

There is one parameter (appId) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'For an app' weakly maps to appId but never states the expected identifier form (Apple resource ID vs bundle ID) or cardinality assumptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List product page optimization tests') and parenthesizes what a PPO test actually is (A/B tests of icon, screenshots, visuals), which is genuinely clarifying domain knowledge. It scopes to 'for an app' and previews returned fields, though it does not name-check sibling tools like apple_get_experiment or apple_list_experiment_treatments.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'List' plus the app scoping — an agent can infer this is the enumeration step before apple_get_experiment or apple_list_experiment_treatments. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. app must have PPO enabled), and no exclusion of the detail/child-list siblings.

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