list_installed_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the data source (.desktop entries) and output fields, but it does not explain how the optional filter behaves or whether results are sorted or limited. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description covers the source, the returned fields, and when to call it. However, the completely undocumented filter parameter is a real gap, and there is no mention of empty-result behavior or ordering, so the description is not fully 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?

The only parameter, filter, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description never mentions it. An agent receives no guidance on what value to pass or how filtering behaves, so the description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource combination: 'List installed desktop applications from this machine (.desktop entries)', and it enumerates exactly what is returned (display name, desktop id, exec binary). This clearly distinguishes it from the many system-info and app-control sibling tools.

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 gives concrete trigger cases: when the user asks what apps are installed, what browser/IDE they have, or before opening an ambiguous app name. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name an alternative sibling, 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.