list_software

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

The annotations already carry the read-only and open-world hints, so the description's disclosure that a token is not required adds some useful behavioral context. There is no contradiction with the annotations. The description, however, doesn't provide extra behavioral info about pagination, filtering, or bounds of the returned list.

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?

A single-sentence description that states the purpose, the endpoint path, and token requirement, with no filler or repetition. Very effective.

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 has only two optional parameters and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, there is no output schema or any hint in the description about the returned fields, and the schema's param descriptions are the only clue about the optional filters. The description is adequate but minimal, with room to describe the response shape or filtering semantics.

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 already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, and the description adds nothing to the schema's own descriptions. This matches the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states the resource: list of software/marketplace applications available for auto-installation, and references the wildcard endpoint. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_os or list_presets.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It implies a use case (listing software available for auto-install) but never states it explicitly, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred context.

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