Desktop List Apps

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real scope information ('running', 'GUI') beyond the name, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it never states that nothing is modified, whether OS accessibility permissions are required, or what happens when no apps are running.

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?

One short sentence with the scope qualifiers front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the title. Every word ('running', 'GUI', 'desktop') constrains the meaning and earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with zero annotations, ambiguity against desktop_list_windows and the absence of any note about permissions or failure behavior leave the definition only minimally adequate for a desktop-control toolset.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain and the description correctly does not invent any. The 'all running GUI applications' wording does set expectations for the result set, which is the only meaningful scope statement for a no-arg tool.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('running GUI desktop applications'), with qualifiers ('running', 'GUI') that narrow the scope meaningfully. It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling desktop_list_windows, which an agent could easily pick by mistake.

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: an agent can infer it is the right tool when it needs an inventory of applications, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the closely related desktop_status or desktop_list_windows siblings.

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