List App Installations

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, but with such complete annotation coverage, re-stating safety would be redundant. Missing details like pagination or return format are not disclosed.

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?

A single, clear sentence with zero filler. For a zero-parameter tool with complete annotations, this level of brevity is appropriate and maximally 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?

For a simple zero-parameter read-only listing tool with strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It mentions workspace scope which is the key distinguishing characteristic. It could note that this returns workspace-level installations versus portal-level ones, but the sibling list provides that context implicitly.

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, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description accurately reflects that there are no inputs to document. With no parameters, the baseline jumps to 4 since there's nothing for the description to need to compensate for.

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 clear action (List) on a specific resource (apps installed in the workspace). It distinguishes from siblings like kilango_list_catalog_apps (catalog apps) and kilango_list_portal_apps (portal apps), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Says what it lists (workspace-level installations) which implicitly distinguishes from portal-app and catalog-app listing siblings. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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