my_eval_packs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the action (list), the scope (published packs), and the output contents (review status, active state, counts). It does not disclose potential edge behaviors like pagination or sorting, but for a simple parameterless listing tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then specifies the included fields. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 parameterless list tool, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the main output fields. Since there is no output schema, it would help to define 'item and certification counts' more precisely, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke this tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what output fields are included, which is useful context even though no parameter details are 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('eval packs you've published'), with additional detail on the fields returned (review status, active state, counts). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_eval_packs' tool, which is likely a broader listing, by explicitly scoping to the user's own published packs.

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 'you've published' provides clear context about intended usage: it is for viewing one's own eval packs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the personal scope is implied strongly enough to guide an agent. Lacks explicit exclusions, preventing a 5.

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