list_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read-only listing operation, but it does not mention potential behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or any limits on the result set. For a simple tool this is acceptable, but more context could be added.

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 with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 extreme simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality adequately. It states what the tool does and its scope. A note about the return format could be beneficial, but it is not essential for such a straightforward list operation.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description adds the scope qualifier 'all apps', which clarifies the parameterless nature. With 0 params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing parameter details.

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 'List all apps in your App Store Connect account' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (apps), and clearly identifies the scope (all apps in the account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app (single app) and list_app_versions (versions of an app). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 implies usage when you need an overview of all apps, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_app or list_app_versions. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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