apps_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately communicates that the tool performs a read-only listing and specifies the exact data returned, including active/hidden status. No hidden side effects or mutation is suggested, so this is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists the returned fields with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the scope ('all running'), and every field the agent can expect in the output. No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap adequately. Sibling differentiation is also implicit through the application-vs-window distinction.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because there are no inputs to document or configure.

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 specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all running applications'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, PID, bundle ID, active/hidden status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like window_list, which target windows rather than applications, without needing to open schemas.

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 clearly implies 'use this when you need a list of running applications' and its field list differentiates it from window- or mouse-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or context such as permission requirements.

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