List Device Packages

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

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains absence of patch-status field, details on severity values and null meaning, auto-pagination behavior, and page parameter effect. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the description is moderately lengthy. Could be slightly more concise without losing meaning.

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?

Covers return fields, pagination, and severity semantics adequately. However, missing parameter descriptions for device_id, limit, output_format, and lacks error conditions or prerequisites. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only partially describes 'page' (fetch single page) and does not explain device_id, limit, or output_format. Leaves major gaps for 3 out of 4 parameters.

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 it lists software packages on a specific Automox device, with specific verb 'list' and resource. It details the return fields (name, version, installed, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like device_detail or list_devices.

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 that auto-pagination makes it reliable for 'is package X installed?' checks, and that passing an explicit `page` fetches a single page. However, it does not compare to alternatives like search_org_packages or state when not to use it.

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