whodb_platform_package_installations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral note—workspace targeting applies per call 'without changing defaults'—but says nothing about pagination, result size, or result shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

A read-only list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and whose schema fully documents all four parameters, so no return-value exposition is needed. It is nearly complete; the only omission is how results are scoped or paginated beyond the project.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of workspace per-call targeting largely restates the schema's own 'Optional target for this call only. Omit to use the session default...' text, adding no format or syntax detail the schema lacks.

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 specific verb and resource ('List hosted package installations') and scopes it to 'the selected project.' The project scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the org-level sibling whodb_platform_org_package_installations, but does not name that alternative explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives (whodb_platform_org_package_installations, whodb_platform_package, whodb_platform_package_library). The workspace sentence is parameter semantics, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no help choosing this tool over its many siblings.

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