List software installed on a computer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds context about the returned fields (version, manufacturer, license status, prohibited usage), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose and output scope. There is no verbose or redundant content; every phrase adds value.

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 read-only list tool with rich schema coverage and clear annotations, the description sufficiently conveys the core purpose and return fields. It does not explain pagination or filters, but the schema covers those details. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by enumerating the returned attributes. Slightly more context about when to use this over sibling tools would improve completeness, but the essential information is present.

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 input schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds context about the output fields but does not add meaning beyond what the schema property descriptions already provide for parameters. 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and clearly identifies the resource ('software installed on a specific computer') with a detailed list of returned attributes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like inventory_software_list and inventory_license_software_list by emphasizing the per-computer scope and inclusion of license/compliance/prohibited status.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as inventory_software_list or inventory_prohibited_software_list. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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