cb_software

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Installed / available software' only indicates subject matter; it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only listing, what kind of data is returned, or whether any side effects occur.

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 very short with no filler, but it is a fragment rather than a clear instruction. A sentence such as 'List installed/available software' would be equally concise and more useful.

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 tool with an output schema, the bar is relatively low, and the description does convey the software domain. However, it omits the action and usage context, so an agent cannot be fully certain whether this returns a list, current status, or some other representation.

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 input schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to document argument semantics. There is no parameter confusion or undocumented required input.

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 identifies the resource ('software') and some scope ('Installed / available'), but it is a noun phrase without a verb, so the agent must infer that the tool lists or reports software. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like cb_versions or cb_updates.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Nothing explains which question it answers or when a sibling tool such as cb_state, cb_options, or cb_versions would be a better choice.

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