list_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the default third_party_only=true restricts results to third-party apps, and setting false includes system apps. However, it says nothing about ordering, result format, or whether the device must be specified first beyond what the schema states.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the only non-obvious parameter guidance. No filler or repetition, though the opening fragment is elliptical rather than a full statement.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but omits return shape and any prerequisite ordering (e.g., call list_devices first to obtain a serial). It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 50%: device is documented in the schema, third_party_only is not. The description compensates by explaining the semantics and default effect of third_party_only, which is genuinely additive rather than a restatement. It adds nothing for device, whose meaning is already given.

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?

States the specific resource (installed package names) and the implicit list operation, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_devices (hardware devices) or shell. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource construction, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternative exists. The agent must infer that this is the tool for enumerating installed apps versus, say, shell with a pm command.

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