get_software_install

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds 'full details' as a hint about return richness, but does not disclose what fields are included, whether related records are expanded, or any data-access constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get tool, though it could have included one more sentence of routing guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

For a read-only single-record retrieval with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition is minimally complete. However, because there is no output schema, the description could have clarified what 'full details' entails (e.g., installed version, license metrics, discovery source) to help the agent decide whether this tool returns the needed data.

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% and the single sys_id parameter is fully documented within the schema itself. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given complete coverage, but it misses a chance to clarify that sys_id comes from a discovery or software install listing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('a discovered software installation'), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_software_installs and get_software_model. It implies retrieval of a single installation record by ID, though it does not explicitly name the sibling list tool used to obtain that ID.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_software_installs or get_software_model, nor any note on prerequisites such as first discovering the sys_id. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and parameter.

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