List compendium packs

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds useful response behavior: it names the fields returned and notes that availableTypes still lists every type even when a filter is set. This is meaningful non-obvious detail, though it omits any pagination or sorting behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The main action and returned fields are front-loaded, and the second sentence conveys an important edge-case behavior about availableTypes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: what is listed, what fields are returned, and how the filter behaves. It could be slightly more complete by describing the overall response shape or differentiating from sibling listing tools, but nothing essential is missing.

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 single optional parameter already has 100% schema coverage, including an example ('Actor or JournalEntry'). The description only restates the filter concept and adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the action ('List all compendium packs') and enumerates the returned properties: id, label, document type, game system, and privacy status, plus an optional filter. It is distinct from entry-level tools like list-compendium-entries, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named list-compendiums sibling.

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 optional type filter implies a usage condition: use this when you want all packs, optionally narrowed by document type. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose list-compendium-packs over list-compendiums or list-compendium-entries, so some alternative routing is left to inference.

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