packageTree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: breadth-first traversal, the effect of a limit on upper-level completeness, and that it names packages it did not open.

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 dense but each sentence carries distinct value: the first defines output and scope, the second contrasts with a sibling and explains traversal behavior. It is somewhat long with a few parenthetical details, but there is no filler 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?

There is no output schema, so the description's specification of returned fields (type, package, source URL) is helpful. It also covers the key selector (nodeContents alternative) and behavior under limits. Minor gaps like pagination details or exact error behavior are not critical for a read-only listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the behavior of limits and depth traversal, which informs how maxObjects and maxDepth operate in practice. It also frames readableOnly's purpose indirectly through the mention of source-serving URLs.

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 states a clear, specific action: list a package's contents and follow its sub-packages, including type, package, and source URL. It explicitly contrasts itself with nodeContents, which only answers one level, making the tool's scope and differentiation immediately clear.

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 explains when to choose this tool over nodeContents, noting that nodeContents gives one level and a non-content SAPGUI URI while packageTree resolves source locations and walks recursively. This gives the agent an explicit selection rule without requiring it to inspect sibling schemas.

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