trmnl_get_installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no note on what a 'retained' installation means, what happens if the id is unknown, or how auth/profile selection affects the read.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the verb first and the endpoint appended. It is not padded, but the brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than efficient — the second line duplicates structured payload information in a raw-path style.

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?

A nested-parameter read tool with no output schema needs the description to say what an installation is and what the read returns. Instead the description stops at a restated endpoint, leaving the agent to guess at the payload and the relationship to configuration resources.

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 only 50%: `profile` is documented in the schema, but the nested `path.id` object has no description. The description's '{id}' in the endpoint hints at the identifier but adds no meaning about format (UUID), profile-defaulting, or scope, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource ('Read a retained installation') and pins the underlying endpoint GET /api/plugin_installations/{id}. However, 'retained installation' is undefined jargon and the definition never distinguishes this from nearby siblings such as trmnl_get_installation_configuration or trmnl_list_app_installations, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the configuration, choices, or evaluation siblings, and no prerequisites. The only routing signal is the raw API path, which assumes the agent already knows the TRMNL API surface.

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