List installed software for an endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds only the existence of a name filter; it does not mention pagination via cursor/limit or that inventory data is a snapshot that may need requerying. Additive but thin given rich annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the scope and the one optional filter are stated in that order. It is efficient, though the lack of any second clause means nothing is prioritized beyond scope.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the description only needs to establish scope, which it does. For a read-only, idempotent, paginated list tool with complete structured metadata, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in structured form; the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes the endpoint scoping and the substring nature of find_by_name but adds no semantics beyond the schema (no default behaviour for limit or how cursor chains with it).

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Fetch') plus a precise resource ('installed-software inventory') and states the scope ('for one endpoint'). An agent can tell it is per-endpoint rather than org-wide, but the description never names the near-identical sibling action1_get_installed_software_endpoint or action1_list_installed_software_data, leaving the boundary to inference.

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 per-endpoint scope implies when to use it (single-host investigation rather than fleet-wide reporting), but no alternative is named and no exclusions are given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer action1_requery_installed_software_for_endpoint when the inventory may be stale, which is a meaningful routing decision here.

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