List App Installations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, but this is minimal extra context. No additional behavioral traits like auth needs or rate limits are disclosed, which is acceptable given the low-risk nature indicated by annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the function, usage context, pagination details, required parameters, and API reference. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description mentions the response format (paginated JSON array with pagination metadata) and the API endpoint. However, it does not clarify the apparent contradiction in the schema regarding required parameters (the schema requires both company_id and project_id, but parameter descriptions say 'either'). This ambiguity reduces completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description reinforces the schema descriptions for page and per_page, controls pagination, and adds value by mentioning that the response includes pagination metadata. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool returns a list of app installations on a given company or project, using the verb 'Returns' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from generic list tools by mentioning App Marketplace records and pagination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_app_installations_v1_0 tool.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to enumerate App Marketplace records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It mentions pagination control with page and per_page, and states required parameters. It does not include when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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