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 behavior disclosure. The verb 'List' signals a non-mutating read operation, and the parenthetical adds semantic context, but no details such as return format, whether the model must be open, or recursion/ordering behavior are given.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a useful clarifying parenthetical. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation, the resource, and the scope. Missing behavioral details like expected output or prerequisites are minor at this complexity level.

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, but it only ties model_id to the model scope via 'of a model.' The parameter name is self-explanatory enough for basic use, yet no format, requirements, or constraints are added beyond what the schema's type/title already convey.

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 resource ('packages'), and the parenthetical clarifies that packages are sub-models/namespaces, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_package, but the list-vs-get distinction is reasonably inferable.

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 'of a model' implies this tool is used when the agent needs the package list for a specific model, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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