search_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the tool's safety profile clear. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether the search is case-sensitive or returns package names only.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. It is appropriately brief for a simple search tool, though it could include more context without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic operation. However, it lacks details on search behavior (e.g., exact vs. partial match, case sensitivity) that would be helpful for correct invocation.

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 description explains the 'keyword' parameter ('containing `keyword`') but does not describe the 'device_id' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves one parameter unexplained.

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 the action ('Search') and the resource ('installed package names') and specifies the search parameter ('keyword'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_apps which lists all apps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_apps, get_current_app, or other search tools. The description implies usage for keyword-based search but does not explain when it is appropriate.

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