System List Running Apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond deployment/provenance: it never states that the tool returns a list of running apps or describes any output, scope, or side-effect characteristics. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes essentially nothing beyond them.

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 short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. The single sentence restates the tool name and adds an irrelevant provenance detail; it earns no place because it contains no functional information. There is no front-loaded substance to evaluate.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema, the minimal required context would be a statement of what it does and how it differs from sibling tools like apple_suggest_running_apps. The description provides neither; even though complexity is low, the description is entirely uninformative and leaves the agent to guess from the name.

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 input schema is trivially complete. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4; there is nothing for the description to add here and no parameter information is missing.

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 is a tautology: it restates the tool name ('Delegated Apple domain tool 'system_list_running_apps'') and adds deployment context ('exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP') without ever stating what the tool does. The reader must infer the behavior from the name and title alone, which the description fails to convey.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. A closely related sibling, apple_suggest_running_apps, exists but there is no mention of it or of any selection criteria, prerequisites, or context in which system_list_running_apps is the appropriate choice.

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