iyke_pkg_list

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral detail on scoping rules and entry fields (including active_now). But it does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects, rate limits, or auth needs.

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, concise paragraph with clear structure: purpose statement, then scoping rules, then listed fields. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (scoping, entries). It lacks parameter clarification but is otherwise complete for a list operation of moderate complexity.

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 0%. The description mentions include_other_projects in context but does not explain the 'kind' parameter at all. It adds partial meaning but is incomplete.

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 clearly states 'List installed pkgs visible from the active project' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing scoping behavior.

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 explains when workspace vs project-scoped packages are included, and the effect of include_other_projects. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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