List tool connection installs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class, which do not constitute new behavioral context beyond what annotations infer. No discussion of return format, pagination, or side effects.

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 short (two lines) and to the point, with no filler words. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Some additional context could be added without losing conciseness.

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 tool lists installs for a connection, the description lacks context about what an 'install' represents, the output format (though output schema exists), and when this tool is appropriate. The minimal information leaves the agent guessing.

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?

Input schema has zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'connectionId' represents (e.g., the ID of a tool connection). The agent cannot infer the parameter's meaning beyond its name.

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 title 'List tool connection installs' and description clearly indicate this tool lists installs for a given tool connection. The verb 'List' is specific to retrieval, and the sibling tool pc_put_tool_connections_by_connection_id_installs implies a mutate operation, so the purpose is distinct. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description mentions authorization class 'board_or_agent' but does not state prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid this tool.

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