ui_apps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares that the tool is read-only, and the description adds value by indicating the result is a live snapshot of the AT-SPI bus ('currently') and that the returned values are directly consumable by sibling tools. No side effects are implied and no contradiction exists.

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 main object and followed by a targeted note about how the result is used. 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 zero-argument, read-only enumerator, this description is sufficient: it defines the output and explains its relationship to ui_tree and ui_find. It does not cover empty-bus edge cases or output formatting, but those are minor gaps given the tool's low complexity.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description clearly states that the tool provides applications currently on the AT-SPI bus, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that these names are what ui_tree and ui_find accept as input. The verb 'list' is implicit, but the meaning is unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to obtain valid app names for ui_tree and ui_find. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the integration hint is actionable and specific enough.

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