sdtm.packages.listSpecializations

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'list' implying read-only, but omits details like pagination, error handling, or what happens if the package does not exist. Limited transparency.

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?

Single sentence with no redundant information. Front-loaded with verb and resource, perfectly concise for a simple list operation.

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 the low complexity and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return type, error behavior, or additional context that would fully prepare an agent for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'package' parameter. While the name 'package' is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning or format hints, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (list), resource (SDTM specializations), and scope (within a package). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sdtm.packages.list (lists packages) and sdtm.packages.getSpecialization (singular get), making purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidelines provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., getSpecialization). No prerequisites or context about package identification are given, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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