List installable tool examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and authorization class ('board'), which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not describe any other behavioral traits, so it only incrementally adds value beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the additional technical detail (HTTP path, auth class) is provided efficiently. No unnecessary words.

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 lacks context about what 'installable tool examples' are, how they relate to other tool management operations, and any prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the description does not clarify the nature of the returned data. Given the tool's specificity and many siblings, more context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the sole parameter (companyId). The agent must infer its meaning from the path pattern, which is insufficient for proper usage.

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 explicitly states 'List installable tool examples', which is a clear verb+resource. The additional HTTP path and authorization class further clarify the purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that manage installations or gallery views.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no prerequisites. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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