get_installations

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 mentions optional pagination but does not disclose whether the tool returns all installations without filtering, what the response contains, or any other behavioral traits like default limits or ordering. This is a significant gap for a retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and the optional pagination feature. For a tool with only two simple parameters, this is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description must fully explain its use case and return value. It fails to specify that this retrieves all installations (as opposed to filtered variants), nor does it describe what the response looks like. Given the sibling tools, this omission creates confusion about when to use this 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?

The schema describes both 'limit' and 'offset' parameters with defaults and meanings, providing 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'optional pagination', which is already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 uses the verb 'Retrieve' with the resource 'installations' and specifies the source API (SAP Cloud ALM ITSM). However, it does not explicitly state that it retrieves ALL installations or differentiate from sibling tools like get_installations_by_system_type, leaving ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the filtered sibling tools. It only mentions optional pagination, which is a parameter detail, not usage context. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or prerequisites mentioned.

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