org_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the first call each day scans all org manifests over the host API (~35 s for 600 repos) and that subsequent calls only process repos pushed since, which is exactly the kind of latency/caching behavior an agent needs before calling. Auth requirements and failure modes are not mentioned.

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?

Nearly every clause adds information — examples, mode outcomes, the 35 s figure — and the core purpose is front-loaded. The telegraphic 'Empty:' / 'query:' / 'name:' fragments make it denser than it needs to be and slightly harder to parse than a short prose or list structure would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still sketches what the name mode returns. Between mode semantics, example queries, and the cold-start cost, an agent has what it needs; only the 'org' parameter's role and behavior on empty results are left implicit.

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, and it does for two of three params: 'query' is defined with an example ('retry http') and 'name' is defined along with what it returns (home, every repo using it, code that calls it). The 'org' parameter is never addressed, though it is implied by the resource phrasing.

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 opening clause names a specific resource ('the org's own libraries that its repos share') and enumerates what counts (internal SDKs, service clients, logging, HTTP, test helpers), so an agent knows exactly what population is being queried. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_org or find_across, but the internal-package scope is distinctive enough to be unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit preference rule ('use these before a public package') and implies a mode-selection scheme: omit args for the ranked list, pass query to filter, pass name to drill into one package. It stops short of saying when to reach for a sibling instead, so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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