Search Org Packages

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

Discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: inverted semantics of `awaiting`, that `returned_package_count` is per-page not fleet-wide, and severity vocabulary details including unobserved spec values. 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?

The description is information-dense but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides necessary details. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers most aspects: filters, pagination, response fields. However, it does not describe the `output_format` parameter or provide a structured response schema, leaving some 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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning and behavior of `awaiting`, `include_unmanaged`, and pagination-related parameters. It adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool searches software packages across the Automox organization, with specific filters and return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_device_packages and search_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 guidance on pagination and notes that `awaiting` is a request filter only. It explains severity vocabulary reference but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool in favor of alternatives.

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