l2_list_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that exports are shown with class, size, and offset, indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not address potential side effects, performance, or file size limits.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and key details.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return fields (class, size, offset), which suffices for a listing tool. Missing details like default ordering or error handling are minor gaps for this complexity level.

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% with one parameter ('filepath') described as 'Absolute path to the .utx, .usx, or .ukx file.' The description mentions the same file extensions, adding minimal extra meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('assets in a package file'), specifies file extensions (.utx, .usx, .ukx), and notes the output fields (class, size, offset). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like l2_texture_info or l2_animation_info.

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 usage for browsing package contents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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