busybar_list_apps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context by saying the result includes which apps are 'running and ready to show,' but says nothing about ordering, error conditions, or whether the list is static or live.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most useful detail (running/ready state) is included rather than buried. Nothing redundant remains to cut.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it mentions the running/ready flags but not the shape of app identifiers or ordering. For a zero-argument list tool this is adequate but thin — an agent still has to call it to learn what an 'app' entry looks like.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Schema coverage is 100% for the empty object.

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 apps in the window manager manifest.' This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like busybar_switch_app or status tools like busybar_get_status, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a discovery step before busybar_switch_app or busybar_get_status, but the description gives no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no exclusion against other listing/status tools.

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