list_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully notes that the optional filter is applied in-process (JavaScript) rather than on the device shell, which prevents misinterpretation about shell execution. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only or describe any other behavioral traits, leaving some ambiguity about side effects and return behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a technical refinement. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague content. The structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what the tool does and adds a behavioral note about filtering, but it does not describe the return format or whether system packages are included. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent would benefit from more details about the expected return value, leaving a completeness gap.

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 parameter's description already says 'Filter packages by name (optional)'. The tool description adds meaningful context about how the filter is executed—'applied in-process (JavaScript), never on the device shell'—which clarifies the filtering mechanism and security implications. This goes beyond the schema, justifying a score above baseline.

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 explicitly states 'List installed packages on the device' with a clear verb and resource. This tool is distinct from all sibling tools, as no other tool claims to list packages. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 when all installed packages need to be listed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives are mentioned, and no exclusions are given. The context of sibling tools suggests no overlap, but the lack of explicit guidance prevents a higher score.

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