list_installable_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is non-mutating, returns platform support, distro detection, and install commands per tool. It also transparently states the Linux-only limitation and the graceful behavior on other platforms.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: listing capability, return information, and safety/platform constraint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no output schema and zero parameters, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns (supported platform, distro detection, install commands), safety, and cross-platform behavior. It covers all necessary aspects for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this 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 has no parameters, and the input schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds context about the return payload and safety, which is more than minimal. Given zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 it lists whitelisted system tools for installation, with a concrete example (wtype). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like install_dependency by being read-only and informative. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'whitelisted system tools' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Always safe to call (no system mutation)', indicating low risk. It also notes the platform restriction: 'v0 supports Linux only — returns supported=false with a friendly explanation on macOS/Windows.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other platforms.

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