List tool packages

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about the tool's output states—enabled, configured, denied, read-only—which clarifies what 'session state' means operationally, and points to the mutation siblings. It does not discuss permissions or rate limits, but with rich annotations that is a minor gap.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the alternative-action guidance.

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 read-only list operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, returned state categories, and the toggle alternatives. It is essentially complete, though a brief note on the default-instance behavior or relationship to servicenow_find_tools would make it fully self-contained.

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 single parameter, instance, is fully documented in the schema ('Profile (default active)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tool packages') and enumerates the session-state fields returned (enabled, configured, denied, read-only, tool count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like servicenow_list_tables and servicenow_list_instances without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

Names the exact sibling tools to use for the adjacent mutation action ('Toggle one with servicenow_enable_package / servicenow_disable_package'), giving clear routing for toggling. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use this versus servicenow_find_tools or other listing tools, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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