Validate Application Installation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states it 'reports' outcomes, not whether it is read-only or has side effects. No mention of auth requirements beyond the schema's instance field, or rate limits.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a usage note. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action and outcomes.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description does not describe the return format or example result. It lists categories but lacks details on how the report is structured. Also missing error handling or empty behavior.

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 baseline 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema—it only restates that a set of applications is validated. No additional semantics about parameter usage or constraints.

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 that the tool validates whether applications are installed at expected versions and reports statuses like valid, need installation, upgrade, or version mismatch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_app_details or validate_catalog.

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 includes 'Useful for verifying environment readiness or checking deployment prerequisites,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives.

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