List Designesy packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only — no side effects' largely restates structured data. However, because no output schema exists, the description's disclosure of the return shape (package_count, packages[], standing_rules[], machine_exports[]) adds real behavioral context an agent cannot get elsewhere.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the enumerated return object is somewhat dense; it earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what's missing: what it returns, when to call it, and when to skip it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms this explicitly ('No parameters — accepts empty input'), which usefully tells the agent no argument construction is needed.

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 (List) and resource (published Designesy packages) with the fields returned (versions, URLs, statuses). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling designesy_contract, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('discover what Designesy publishes before fetching a specific contract') and when-NOT-to-use ('if you already know which package you need, skip this and call designesy_contract directly'), naming the alternative tool by name.

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