list_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the result includes both currently running apps and recently used ones (14 days), and includes usage frequency details. This framing helps the agent understand that the listing is not exhaustive (not all installed apps).

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and then states the return scope in an efficient follow-up. Every clause adds relevant information—there is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only list tool, the description covers the essential inputs, scope, and returned information ('running apps', 'last 14 days', 'usage frequency'). No output schema exists, but the description says what kind of details are returned. It is slightly shy of 5 because it does not mention whether the list includes system apps or is sorted, but those details are superficial for invoking the 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 has 0 declared parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema indicates no expected arguments. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not confuse the agent by implying any arguments are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('the apps on this computer') and then specifies exactly what subset is returned: running apps plus those used in the last 14 days, with usage frequency. This differentiates it from siblings like get_app_state, click, or type_text, none of which are about app discovery.

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 a discovery use case—get the set of apps available on the machine—but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, which leaves the agent to infer based on the tool name and siblings.

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