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 of behavioral disclosure. It never states that this is a read-only call, whether results are paginated, or what authentication/org-selection state is required, all of which matter for a list operation in this sibling set.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste or filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions rather than being an asset on its own.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about return shape or pagination than a single scoping clause.

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 single 'org' parameter is documented in the schema as 'Organization id or name; defaults to the selected org'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List apps') and scopes it to an organization, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling (list_channels / list_orgs), but the resource name is 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the other list_* siblings, nor on prerequisites such as needing a selected org first (select_org exists as a sibling). Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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