get_installation_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the returned installation attributes but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as auth requirements or rate limits. It does not contradict the 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?

One short sentence with no filler; the action and result are front-loaded. This is ideal conciseness for a zero-parameter informational getter.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description contains everything essential for correct invocation. Additional alternative guidance would be nice but is not required for this simple query 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The 100% schema coverage and zero-parameter surface make this dimension trivially satisfied.

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 states a specific action ('查询' / query) and a specific resource: IBM MQ installation name, version, and platform. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that target queue managers, queues, channels, topics, or messages. The purpose is unambiguous and not a mere restatement of the tool name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative sibling is mentioned. The intended usage is only implied: call this tool when installation-level metadata is needed. This meets the 'implied usage' level but offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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