get_installed_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but omits important details such as whether the tool requires a connected device, how it behaves without device_id, or the exact content of 'details.' No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is straightforward and compact. The only minor extra is 'Essential for identifying installed applications,' which adds context but could be seen as slightly redundant. Overall, it's efficient and well-organized.

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 that the tool has an output schema and only three optional parameters, the description covers basic functionality but lacks depth. It does not explain default behavior (e.g., default device when device_id omitted) or potential side effects of writing to output_file. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient but not rich, leaving some gaps in operational context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter list is essential. It provides meaningful semantics for each parameter: device_id as optional serial number, include_system for system apps, and output_file for saving JSON. While brief, it clarifies the role of every parameter, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get list of all installed packages with details.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_running_processes or dump_system_settings, which target different system aspects.

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 gives a clear context for use ('Essential for identifying installed applications') but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, with no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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