List apps

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

readOnlyHint=true in annotations already declares this is a safe read. The description adds context by listing the returned fields and confirming account scope, but says nothing about pagination behavior or what the limit parameter governs beyond what the schema states.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, scope, and return fields are all packed efficiently without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (name, bundle ID, SKU, App ID). For a one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint coverage, this is nearly complete; only pagination/max-result semantics are left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% - the single 'limit' parameter (default 50, max 200) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.

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 (List) and resource (apps) with scope ('in your App Store Connect account') and the fields returned (name, bundle ID, SKU, App ID). Sibling tools are mostly write/action operations with no competing 'list apps' variant, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but none is offered.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The description only restates what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the entry point for discovering apps before calling siblings like app_details or list_builds.

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