apps-init

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's behavior: querying and automatic registration, with store-specific rules. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'register automatically' entails (e.g., side effects). This is a moderate disclosure but leaves gaps for a tool with potential mutations.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage rules without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity (a tool that queries and registers apps, with store-specific behavior), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and store rules but lacks details on output format, error cases, or deeper behavioral traits. For a tool with potential side effects and no structured output, it should do more to be fully adequate.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('store' and 'packageName') with descriptions and enums. The description adds some context: it clarifies that 'packageName' is required for Google Play, which is implied but not explicit in the schema (which says 'required when setting up Google Play'). This provides marginal value beyond the schema, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 purpose: 'Query app list from store API and register automatically.' It specifies the verb ('query' and 'register') and resource ('app list'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apps-add' or 'apps-search', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 this tool: 'App Store: auto-register all apps, Google Play: packageName required.' This gives explicit guidance for different store scenarios, including a requirement for Google Play. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'apps-add' for manual registration, so it's not a full 5.

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