get_software_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the return object contains 'total' and 'software' (alphabetically sorted) with fields name, version, publisher, installDate. This provides sufficient behavioral context for a read operation.

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 concise and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return format including sorting and fields. It covers both parameters and output structure. Minor gaps like error handling or pagination are acceptable for this simple tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining device_id accepts hostname or GUID, and query is an optional search term with default behavior ('Leer = alle installierten Programme'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 description clearly states the verb 'Gibt zurück' (returns) and the resource 'installierte Software auf einem Gerät'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on software inventory, unlike get_device or list_devices which deal with device info or listings.

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 specifies acceptable inputs for device_id (hostname or GUID) and explains the query parameter as optional search term. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the narrow purpose makes usage self-evident.

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