list_packagesList current SYA packages, localised USD/GBP/EUR prices, intended use and customer-controlled detail links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| currency | No | Display currency | USD |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by specifying the output includes localization and detail links, which is beyond the schema's minimal currency parameter.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key outputs. Every word is necessary; no extraneous information.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately describes what is returned (packages, prices, intended use, links). It does not mention pagination or limits, but given the likely small dataset, this is sufficient.
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% for the single 'currency' parameter, which has a clear description and enum. The description mentions 'localised USD/GBP/EUR prices', reinforcing the parameter's purpose, but adds no new information beyond the schema.
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 the action ('List current SYA packages') and specifies the output includes localized prices, intended use, and detail links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which have different functions (e.g., 'explain_readiness_score', 'scan_website').
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the sibling tool names are distinct enough that the purpose is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct function: scanning, explaining scores, listing packages, getting links, and sample reports. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., scan_website, list_packages), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of website readiness assessment. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy or unnecessary complexity.
The tool surface covers the entire workflow: scanning, understanding scores, exploring packages and pricing, and viewing sample reports. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.