list_installed_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but 'list/discover' plus zero parameters make the read-only nature self-evident. It adds useful domain context that results derive from Module Def records on the target site, though it says nothing about scope across sites or result volume—mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Minor jargon ('Module Def records') assumes Frappe familiarity but earns its place by tying the tool to its data source.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the resource and its provenance. The only gap is what 'target site' resolves to, which could matter for an agent operating across sites.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The one semantic detail worth noting—that the target is the 'target site'—is mentioned in the description, though it doesn't explain how that site is determined, since there is no parameter for it.

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 names a concrete resource ('apps and modules') and grounds it in the underlying data source ('Module Def records'), which distinguishes it from document/doctype siblings like list_doctypes and list_documents. The verb 'discover' is softer than the tool name's 'list', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource: call it when you need to know what apps/modules are installed. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no pointer to alternatives such as list_doctypes, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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