get_installed_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it self-declares 'Read-only' and discloses the failure mode ('Fatal only if no supported package manager is present or the query fails'). It also reveals the underlying mechanism per distro. What it leaves implicit is any permission/auth requirement, but for a read-only local query that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and stays dense with no filler sentences. The per-distro command list is slightly verbose but earns its place by signaling coverage and portability, so nothing is truly wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. For a single optional-parameter read tool, the description supplies purpose, usage routing, mechanism, and error behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning by noting the filter is 'resolved by the package manager itself', implying matching semantics depend on the underlying tool rather than a fixed pattern syntax. That is a useful nuance beyond the schema field.

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+resource ('Queries installed packages') and even enumerates the concrete per-distro commands (pacman -Q, dpkg -l, rpm -qa, apk list --installed). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_available_updates, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Names the use case ('Use to check what is installed') and the alternative with its selecting condition ('get_available_updates for pending upgrades'). Both when-to-use and the sibling boundary are stated explicitly.

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