list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key behavioral detail by specifying 'visible' applications, which distinguishes from all running apps. However, it does not disclose whether minimized windows count as visible, what the return format is, or whether the list contains names, bundle IDs, or other identifiers. This leaves some behavioral transparency gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. It contains no redundant words or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for an agent to understand the operation. It clearly states what is listed (visible apps) and the platform (macOS). However, it does not describe the return value structure, which could be important for downstream processing, but this is a minor gap for such a straightforward tool.

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 already has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'onlyVisible' with a clear description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies since schema coverage is high and the description does not contribute additional parameter context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource as 'all currently open visible user applications running on macOS,' which precisely states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like open_app, quit_app, and get_active_window by focusing on enumerating all open visible apps rather than manipulating or querying a single app.

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 implies a clear use case: when an agent needs to know which user applications are currently open and visible on macOS. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the simple list-oriented function.

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