List Device Packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: auto-pagination ensures complete results, which is non-obvious. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, return fields, pagination behavior. No redundant phrases. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Output schema exists, so return structure is covered. Description explains auto-pagination and reliability for installation checks. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage, the description should also explain `limit` and `output_format` for full completeness.

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 0%. Description adds meaning for `device_id` (implied by 'on a specific device') and `page` (explains pagination behavior). However, `limit` and `output_format` are not mentioned, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states verb 'list', resource 'software packages on a specific Automox device', and lists returned fields (names, versions, patch status, severity). Differentiates from siblings by specifying device-level listing and auto-pagination for reliability in checking package installation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: default returns complete set for reliable 'is package X installed?' checks, and instructs to pass explicit `page` for single page fetch. Does not mention when not to use this tool but context is clear.

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