router_packages

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds 'bounded result' and the installed/world scope, but does not explain query matching behavior, ordering, or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to scope ('installed/world') or outcome ('bounded result').

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 read-only search with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose but leaves query behavior and result shape unspecified. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps an agent would need to make confident calls.

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 must compensate for documenting query and limit. 'Search' and 'bounded result' only hint at the parameters without explaining query matching semantics or how the bound is applied. This is insufficient for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 'Search' and identifies the resource as the 'installed/world package list', which distinguishes this tool from the sibling router_package_catalog (available packages). It clearly states the operation and scope.

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 phrase 'installed/world package list' implies this tool is for installed packages rather than the catalog, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus alternatives or lists exclusions. Usage guidance is largely inferred from the resource wording.

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