Validate Application Installation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the baseline for transparency is lower. The description adds value by disclosing the reporting behavior: it categorizes apps as valid, needing installation, needing upgrade, or having version mismatches. There is no contradiction with annotations, and nothing suggests side effects. It could elaborate on error handling or auth requirements, but for a read-only validation tool with good annotations, this is solid.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action in the first sentence, and every clause adds relevant information. There is no fluff, repetition, or extraneous detail. It efficiently conveys what the tool does, what it reports, and when to use it.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a good job of conveying the result categories: valid, need installation, need upgrade, version mismatch. For a validation tool with only two parameters (one required) and full schema documentation, this is sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it. It does not describe the exact response format, but that is not necessary given the descriptive reporting 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters ('instance' and 'packages') with descriptive details, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description's mention of 'expected versions' loosely mirrors the 'requested_version' field but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Validate' and a clear resource: 'whether a set of applications are installed at the expected versions.' It sharply distinguishes from sibling install tools (e.g., install_from_app_repo) and lookup tools (e.g., get_app_details) by framing it as a read-only verification step. The added detail about reporting validity, installation needs, upgrades, and mismatches makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Useful for verifying environment readiness or checking deployment prerequisites' gives concrete context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer that installation/comparison tools would be used for actual changes. This is clear contextual guidance without formal exclusions.

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