List Blizzard's shipped UI packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It conveys that the tool lists packages and supports optional filtering, and it frames this as a read-only, preparatory step. However, it does not explicitly disclose whether there are any side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., return format, ordering, or performance characteristics). This is sufficient for a simple list operation but leaves room for more transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and each clause earns its place. It states the payload, the optional filter, the intended workflow, and a practical example without any filler or repetition.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the rich parameter schema, and the presence of sibling tools like grep and file search, the description is adequately complete. It explains the tool's scope, ties it into a workflow, and gives an example. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. A 5 would require more explicit details about output or edge cases, so 4 is appropriate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('Blizzard_ActionBar for action buttons') that illustrates how the filter parameter maps to real UI packages, going beyond the schema's basic substring definition. This extra semantic guidance raises the score to 4.

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 names the exact resource ('Blizzard_* addon packages that ship with the client'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like grep or file search. It also gives a concrete example ('Blizzard_ActionBar for action buttons'), which reinforces the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('Use this to find which package owns a piece of the UI before grepping it'), which clearly positions it relative to a sibling tool (grep). It provides a clear usage scenario but does not list explicit exclusions or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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