privacyflow_list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data returned (appId, name, active state, messengers with groupId/provisioning status) and the no-input requirement. While it doesn't mention potential side effects or rate limits, the scope of a list operation is well-covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, and how to use it.

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, zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the return content, the use case, and input requirements. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicitly listing the fields included.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds explicit confirmation with 'No input required,' reinforcing what the empty schema already suggests. No additional param details are needed.

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 the tool's function: 'List all PrivacyFlow apps authorized by your API key.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (apps), and distinguishes from siblings by explicitly referencing discovery of appIds for privacyflow_send_messages.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover which appIds you can pass to privacyflow_send_messages and which messengers each app supports.' It mentions an alternative by name but stops short of explicit exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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