list_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explicitly confirming that this is a read-only operation, mentioning pagination, response format, or other side effects. The verb 'List' implies read-only but doesn't provide sufficient transparency for an agent.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is meaningful, with no wasted content, making it highly efficient.

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?

As a simple list tool with no params and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what fields are returned for each package, whether pagination exists, or if any side effects occur. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the empty input schema already documents this. The description adds the semantic of listing 'all' packages, implying no filtering, which is useful context. This meets the 0-param baseline of 4.

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 states a specific action ('List'), resource ('integration packages'), and scope ('in the SAP CPI tenant'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_keystores and list_credentials, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_artifacts, making it a solid but not perfect purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_artifacts or get_runtime_artifacts. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred use cases, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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