List Apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat ('including the current device-locale label when available') but does not disclose output shape or pagination behavior. This matches the baseline for a read-only list tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action and key output trait are front-loaded, and the alternative tool pointer is placed after the core functionality without cluttering the definition.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the scope (device backend), a key output detail (locale label), and routes to the relevant sibling for human-readable names. No crucial calling information is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the device parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage baseline.

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 and resource ('List apps known by the device backend') and adds a distinguishing detail about device-locale labels. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from mobile_resolve_app, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 second sentence directly routes the agent to mobile_resolve_app when a human-facing name is needed, providing an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it. The schema additionally points to mobile_list_available_devices for finding device identifiers, so usage context is clear.

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