kodi_addons

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat — that an 'enabled' flag does not imply the add-on is actually used or authenticated — which is real context beyond the structured fields.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the returned fields first and appends the caveat last. Nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The one real gap is the undocumented enabled_only filter, which is minor for an otherwise simple list 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the single parameter, enabled_only, nor what happens when it is true/false (the default is only in the schema). For a filtering parameter whose behavior defines the result set, this leaves the agent to infer semantics.

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 ('List') and resource ('installed add-on IDs, versions and enabled states'), which is more precise than the sibling kodi_status or kodi_addon_settings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a caveat ('enabled is not proof of use/authentication') but never says when to reach for this tool versus kodi_status, kodi_addon_settings, or kodi_read. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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