List Installed Apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value beyond this by explaining the implementation (mdfind, /Applications scan, system_profiler), fallback behavior, performance trade-offs, and permission requirements. This gives the agent a clear picture of what happens during execution.

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 front-loaded: the core purpose and return fields are in the first sentence, followed by necessary implementation and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place, with 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what is returned, how it works, permission requirements, and parameter semantics. The presence of annotations covers safety expectations, so no further behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the 'thorough' parameter. The description goes further by contrasting the fast path with thorough:true and explaining what additional info thorough provides (code-signing/obtained-from info), enhancing the schema's bare definition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List installed applications' and enumerates the returned fields (name, bundle id, version, path). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_list or file_list by focusing on installed applications.

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 how to use the tool, including the fast mdfind path, fallback behavior, and the slower thorough mode. It also states 'No permission required,' which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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