list_installed_tools

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description says 'inventory' which is a read-only operation, implying safety, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating. It does not describe any side effects, output details, or dependencies on system state. Given the lack of annotations, the description could be more explicit about it being a harmless read operation, but it's not misleading.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes a useful parenthetical detail about categorization. It doesn't waste any words, and the structure is clean. Minor deduction because it could arguably include a brief note on output format, but it's still efficient.

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?

Given this is a simple, parameterless tool with an output schema (which the description doesn't need to detail), the description is relatively complete. It explains what the output is (installed tools grouped by categories), which aligns with the tool's purpose. The sibling tools are more complex, but for a list/inventory tool, this provides sufficient context. It could mention typical use cases (e.g., pre-engagement assessment), but that's not necessary.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema automatically covers 100% of the parameters. The description does not need to describe any parameters. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not add unnecessary parameter info, so it's 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 clearly states the purpose: to inventory installed BlackArch security-tool packages, and mentions categorization by category, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tools that are more specific operations (e.g., nmap_scan, hydra_bruteforce). This is a specific verb-resource combination (list installed packages) with useful contextual detail (grouped by category).

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 implies that this is a discovery/inventory tool, which should be used to see what tools are installed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings, nor does it mention alternatives (e.g., for more detailed tool info, use audit_pacman_packages). The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it's a broad inventory read, but lacks explicit guidance.

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