list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: bundle ID is an exact filter and names are not identity, which helps an agent understand matching semantics. It does not disclose pagination, result ordering, or what happens when no bundleId is provided, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a high-value filtering caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. The main missing piece is the meaning of limit and the result shape, but the annotations cover safety and the description covers the key identity caveat. It is not as complete as it could be, but it is not severely deficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It does clarify that bundleId is an exact filter and that names are not identity, which adds meaning beyond the schema's raw string type. However, it does not explain the limit parameter's behavior, default, or interaction with bundleId, leaving a gap.

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 states a clear verb ('Discover') and resource ('apps through public Apple API reads'), and adds a meaningful scoping note that bundle ID is an exact filter while names are not identity. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the phrase 'public Apple API reads' distinguishes it from planning/apply/submission tools in the sibling list.

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 usage context: it is a read-only discovery tool for apps, and the bundle ID note gives a hint about how to filter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bundle_id_state or get_app_store_state, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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