List Packages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds detail about returned fields (version and enabled status), but does not contradict annotations. Additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering behavior) is absent but not critical for such a simple tool.

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 sentence that conveys purpose and output without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, earning its place.

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?

The tool is simple, with no output schema but the description states what will be returned. Annotations cover safety, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function. Minor gaps like pagination behavior are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with both parameters already described in the input schema. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters, but as per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists installed RouterOS packages and specifies the returned information (version and enabled status). It uses a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'manage_package' and other list tools targeting different resources.

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 implies usage for listing packages, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no competing list tool for packages and clear annotations indicating read-only, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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