list_web_packages

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: deleted packages are excluded, the state field includes PROCESSING/READY/ERROR with only READY usable by lessons, and the required OAuth scope is stated. This significantly helps the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise definition, response scope, state semantics, and the required scope. The description is informative without verbosity or repetition.

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 zero parameters, a present output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete for invocation. It covers what is returned, what is excluded, state meaning, and authentication requirements. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still justifies the absence of args by noting the endpoint supports none, which adds useful context.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the organization's live web packages'), defines what a web package is, and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_web_package by noting it returns EVERY live one. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool returns all live packages in one response, is not paginated, and takes no arguments. While it doesn't explicitly name get_web_package as the alternative for fetching a single package or mention when not to use this tool, the behavior is described well enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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