list_packages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully discloses the returned fields and filter behavior, but it omits any statement about authentication, pagination, ordering, or rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the optional filter detail following. Every clause contributes useful information, and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: what is returned and what category values are valid. It is nearly complete, with only secondary details like ordering or pagination absent.

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 supply parameter meaning itself. It does so by identifying the single optional parameter as a category filter and enumerating five accepted values, adding substantial value beyond the bare schema. It does not clarify matching rules or case sensitivity, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 specific verb (list) and resource (PQBlocks packages), and names the fields returned (area, status, version, install line), which makes the operation concrete. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling recommend_package, but the inventory-browsing scope is clear.

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 this is the tool for browsing all packages and mentions the optional category filter, but it never says when to use this versus recommend_package or check_config. No exclusions or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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