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 only mentions the action (list), but does not disclose pagination behavior, whether results are sorted, what data is returned (just IDs? full objects?), or any rate limits. The limit parameter is described in schema but not in the description. For a simple list tool, this is minimal transparency.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks context about the scope of 'apps' (e.g., all apps in account or user-visible apps) and does not elaborate on the return format or behavior. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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% (the single parameter 'limit' has a description in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it just states the tool's purpose. The parameter's meaning is adequately conveyed by the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 it retrieves a list of apps registered in App Store Connect. It is specific about the resource (apps) and action (list), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_app_info (single app) or list_bundle_ids. The name itself is self-explanatory, so it's clear but lacks explicit distinction.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, filtering options, or when to choose list_apps over related tools like get_app_info. The sibling list provides implicit context, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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