sysknife_apt_list_installed

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's two "read-only" mentions add nothing. The one piece of extra context is the dpkg -l backing command, which hints at output shape and package-manager scope.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but it wastes words: read-only is asserted twice and the internal action name `AptListInstalled` is redundant with the tool name. Trimming to a single clause would lose nothing.

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 zero-param read-only listing tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description says enough to call it correctly. A brief note on what the result contains (package/version fields) would make it complete.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly confirms "no params", matching the empty schema with additionalProperties true.

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 and resource ("list all installed packages") and names the underlying mechanism (dpkg -l), which distinguishes it from apt_list_upgradable, apt_show, or apt_search. It does not explicitly contrast 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 dpkg -l note implicitly scopes the tool to dpkg-managed packages (as opposed to snap/flatpak listings), but the description never states when to prefer this over apt_list_upgradable, apt_history_list, or snap_list. Usage is left to be inferred from the name.

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