packages_reseller_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and 'legacy', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose output details, error behavior, permissions, or limitations. Minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: the core action is stated immediately, and the parameter explanation follows directly without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and an output schema, so the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks guidance about when to use this legacy endpoint instead of the newer reseller package API, leaving an important decision to inference.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'package' is an optional package name. This directly clarifies what the parameter represents and that it is not required.

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 clear verb and resource: list reseller packages, with the optional ability to list a single package by name. The '(legacy)' marker helps distinguish it from newer API-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the newer packages_reseller_new_api or the related packages_user_list. The word 'legacy' implies it is older, but the description does not state whether it should be preferred, avoided, or only used for compatibility.

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