cigchat_template_installs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the auth requirement ('Manage Team' scope) and identifies the HTTP method as GET, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, error cases, or return format, which would be valuable for a tool with no output schema.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get list of installs'), then provides the endpoint and auth requirement. Every piece of information earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 list tool with three parameters, the description covers the essential context: the resource (template namespace), the HTTP endpoint, and the required scope. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the clear name and purpose, but it could be more complete by mentioning pagination defaults or the type of installs returned. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are already well-documented. The description only adds that results are filtered 'by template ns', which aligns with the templateNs parameter. It does not add extra semantics for page or limit beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get list of installs by template ns', with a specific resource (template namespace) and the HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_templates or list_tags, which operate on different resources.

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 the tool is used to fetch installs for a given template namespace, and it notes the required 'Manage Team' scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other list tools or provide exclusions/alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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