list_endpoint_installed_software

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest and delivers: the pagination envelope {total, offset, has_more, items}, the limit default of 20 with a hard max of 200, and the fact that `contains` is a server-side filter. It does not disclose rate limits or auth requirements beyond org_id being required, but the added context is substantial.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then filtering/paging advice. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical CVE example adds mild noise for a software-inventory tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the response envelope and the pagination contract, which an agent needs to page correctly. It stops short of describing what fields each item contains (name, version, vendor, etc.) or what 'installed' excludes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 params, so the description must compensate. It documents `limit` (default 20, max 200) and `contains` (server-side text filter on item fields), but org_id, endpoint_id, and offset are left to inference, and the `contains` example (CVE id) is borrowed from a different resource and may mislead for an installed-software listing.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (software installed) with an explicit scope qualifier (on one endpoint), which cleanly separates it from org-wide siblings like list_vulnerabilities or list_missing_updates. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives practical invocation guidance for paging (check `total` before paging through everything) and explains what `contains` filters against, but never states when to choose this tool over list_missing_updates, list_vulnerabilities, or get_endpoint. Usage is implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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