discover_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads .env and scans transactions, which goes beyond a generic 'discover' label. It also specifies the return format as a JSON string with apps and count. While it doesn't mention side effects or permissions, the behavior described is transparent for a read-only discovery operation.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the primary purpose, explains the method, gives guidance on usage, and then describes the return payload. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has no parameters, an output schema is present, and it is a foundational discovery tool among analytics-focused siblings, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains what it does, how it works, and why the output is needed, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description explains what the tool does without needing to describe parameter semantics, which is appropriate. It does not add parameter-specific details, but none 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 purpose: 'Discover all Shopify apps in your partner account.' It explains the method (checks .env config and scans transactions) and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the returned IDs should be used with all other tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'use these IDs for all other tools,' which informs when this tool should be used (as a discovery prerequisite). However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, though the purpose is clear enough.

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