assets_get_installed_applications

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

The description discloses a behavioral fallback for installed_at, but with no annotations, it fails to mention other behavioral traits like read-only nature, authorization requirements, or error handling. It partially compensates for missing 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key details. It is concise but could be slightly improved by splitting the output field list and fallback note.

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 no output schema, the description provides moderate context: return fields, pagination, and a fallback. However, it lacks mention of required permissions, error scenarios, or exact output structure, leaving gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters, only context about the output (fallback). Baseline 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'paginated list of software applications installed on an asset', and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes from siblings like assets_get (asset details) and assets_get_patches (patches).

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 usage for paginated retrieval by mentioning pagination, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., assets_list for all assets, or assets_get for single asset info) or when not to use.

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