whatsms_admin_get_packages

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

With no annotations, the description must convey safety and side effects. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of optional pagination adds behavioral detail, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it disclose any permissions, response format, or rate limits. The behavior is adequately implied but not fully transparent.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the only additional detail (pagination). No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists and a key optional feature. It lacks explicit mention of the return shape or any filters, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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 schema has no defined parameters, but the description mentions 'optional pagination,' which adds meaningful guidance beyond the empty schema. Since there are zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description earns that by hinting at a potential pagination parameter without naming it.

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's action ('List') and target resource ('all packages in the WhatSMS system'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_users or create_package by focusing specifically on packages and a read operation.

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?

The description implies the usage context (listing packages) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest the context, but the description itself offers no guidance on choosing this over related tools such as get_subscriptions or update_package.

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