installer_installers__list_installers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the vague "available to the caller" scoping phrase and says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or that the results come from a remote ESET API.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but a meaningful share of the text is redundant: "List installers" and "List all installers available to the caller" say the same thing. The raw REST path is mildly useful for cross-referencing API docs but eats space without helping tool selection.

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?

This is a simple, parameter-free-required read-only list endpoint with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, so the burden on the description is low. It conveys the resource and scope; only a note on what an "installer" represents and when to prefer the get_installer sibling would improve it.

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 all four parameters (fields, usable, pageSize, pageToken) are already thoroughly documented in the schema, including pagination semantics and the local projection behavior. The description contributes nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List installers") and adds a scope note that results are limited to what is "available to the caller." However, the second clause largely restates the first, and there is no differentiation from the sibling installer_installers__get_installer beyond the implicit list/get split.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_installer, nor any mention of the usable filter as a selection strategy. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the bulk-enumeration path.

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