packages_user_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key conditional behavior (list all vs. show one), but does not explicitly state read-only status, required permissions, or behavior for unknown package names.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The 'Args' note is minimal and earns its place because the schema has no property descriptions.

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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers both invocation modes. It does not address auth requirements or invalid-package behavior, but those are minor for a list/detail tool and are partly shielded by the output schema.

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%, and the description compensates by calling the parameter 'Optional package name' and linking it to the 'show one package' mode. This adds meaningful usage context beyond the bare schema property, though it stops short of explaining valid formats or where package names come from.

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 states a specific action ('List user packages, or show one package') with a clear resource ('user packages') and an optional conditional mode. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like packages_reseller_list without needing to open the schema.

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 description implies usage through the optional 'package' parameter: omit it to list all, provide it to show one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling package tools or any exclusions.

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