trmnl_list_app_installations

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that only active installations are returned and that their IDs feed other operations, but it does not disclose return shape or pagination 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 short and front-loads the primary action. It includes a mildly redundant restatement of the resource and an API endpoint, but it remains efficient overall.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It does not explain the full return structure, but no output schema exists and the key installation_id semantics are stated.

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 100%, and the only parameter profile is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: listing app installations for the account, limited to active installations. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as trmnl_list_apps.

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 clear usage context by explaining that the returned ids are the installation_id used by fleet and room booking operations. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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