list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that it enumerates currently running windows rather than all installed apps, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or freshness.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the routing condition; every clause carries weight. The awkward 'available to brand' phrasing is the only blemish.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description should ideally hint at what a listed app entry looks like (name, id, handle) so the agent can chain into target selection. Safety and usage are complete, but the return contract is left implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 and resource ('List running Hyprland apps/windows'), which clearly separates it from launch_app/open_app siblings. The trailing phrase 'available to brand' is garbled and slightly muddies what the list actually returns, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Start here before choosing a target app') plus an exclusion ('unless the user explicitly asks to launch a new app/window'), which effectively routes the agent between this tool and the launch tools. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives directly.

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