get_software

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination (cursor/limit), operation-specific requirements, and element resolution. It doesn't add extra side-effect info but confirms the safe-read nature.

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 efficiently organized with a one-sentence overview followed by an Args list. Each parameter gets a brief, focused explanation. No unnecessary fluff.

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 multi-operation tool with 5 params and an output schema, the description covers the main use case, operation selection, pagination, and element resolution. The missing 'detail' parameter and lack of return-value explanation are minor gaps given the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 80% (4 of 5 params described in schema). The description reiterates operation, element, cursor, and limit with similar wording, adding minor grouping context. The 'detail' parameter is not mentioned in the description, missing a chance to compensate for its absence in the schema.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect element software state/status and tenant-wide upgrade/template status.' This uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_inventory or get_platform.

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 explains when to use each operation, such as requiring 'element' for element_state/element_status and noting tenant-wide operations need no params. It also references find_element for resolution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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