list_apps

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of what the records contain (type, status, settings), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It does not say whether disabled/uninstalled apps are included or whether the result is site-scoped, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact code-to-name mapping. The second sentence is dense but every entry earns its place as the only available documentation of the type field, and there is no filler.

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 correctly spends its budget describing the return payload and enumerating the type codes. It omits scope details (which site, whether archived apps appear), which is a minor gap for a simple listing tool.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add; the app-type code table describes output values rather than 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List the site's installed applications') and even previews the returned fields (type, status, settings). It is clearly separable in intent from get_app / install_app / update_app, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 infers you call this to enumerate installed apps, but there is no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to alternatives such as get_app for a single app. For a zero-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate rather than helpful.

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