router_package_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the LuCI catalog and reinforces that no package mutations occur, but it does not disclose behavior around pagination, query matching, or result structure.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the key non-obvious context about package mutations. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 browse tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but gaps remain: no output schema, no parameter explanations, and no mention of pagination/filtering behavior. An agent could call it correctly, but would be uncertain about the exact meaning of query and result formatting.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at the scope dimension by mentioning 'installed and available', but leaves limit, query, and offset entirely unexplained; these are not self-evident beyond their names.

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 identifies the action ('Browse') and the resource ('package catalog shown by LuCI'). It explicitly scopes the tool to installed and available packages and contrasts it with updating, installing, or removing packages, making it easy to distinguish from package-management siblings.

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 communicates a clear read-only browsing context and signals when this tool is appropriate relative to mutation operations. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling like router_packages, but the 'without updating, installing, or removing' phrasing effectively conveys the intended use case.

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