signalgrid_installed_apps

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: potential ~30s latency on first call, the fact that system_profiler is the data source, and the error return format ('Error: ...' if system_profiler failed). This goes beyond safety traits to performance and failure behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, args, and returns. It's fairly dense but every sentence contributes meaning, such as the latency warning and the sideloaded-app signal. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

The description is thorough: it covers when to use, what it returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, performance characteristics, and relationship to sibling tools. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete for a list-style inventory 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal context for limit/offset by noting 'inventories often have hundreds of entries', which justifies pagination. However, for name_contains and unsigned_only, the description largely restates what the schema already says.

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 function as an inventory of installed applications with version, source, and signer. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning software-inventory questions and contrasting with signalgrid_codesign_inspect for deep one-app verdicts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use for software-inventory questions and to shortlist risky installs, with a concrete signal (obtained_from='Unknown' plus no signer). It also recommends signalgrid_codesign_inspect for deep verdicts, offering a clear alternative.

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