action1_list_installed_apps

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the core function. It does not disclose pagination, sorting, or side effects, though the output schema exists. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential purpose and scope efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward list operation, and the output schema covers return values. However, with no annotations and four optional parameters, a bit more context (e.g., how it relates to list_packages or any pagination behavior) would make it more 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds high-level scope context (tenant-wide vs endpoint-specific) but does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema offers.

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 'List' and resource 'installed software', and clearly states the scope as 'tenant-wide or for one endpoint', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_endpoints or list_packages.

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 phrase 'tenant-wide or for one endpoint' provides clear usage context, indicating the two invocation modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the scope guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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