get_apps

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing examples of apps, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or empty result behavior. Given annotation coverage, the description provides adequate but not rich context.

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 communicates the tool's purpose effectively without unnecessary words.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and provides examples. It is mostly complete, though it could mention that it returns an array of app objects, but this is not critical.

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% for the single parameter 'limit'. The description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get installed online music apps' with specific examples (TIDAL, Spotify, Qobuz, YouTube), making the verb and resource explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_playlists or get_favorites by focusing on music streaming services.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: to list installed music apps. While it provides clear context, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling getter tools.

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