Metis — List Background Packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context — that packs are curated open-access document sets and that installation downloads and indexes files locally — but that side-effect disclosure pertains mostly to the install sibling; it never states that this tool itself is a safe read-only listing or how results are ordered/limited.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result sets. The pack-definition and install-explanation sentences earn their place by helping an agent decide between listing and installing, though the install mechanics are slightly tangential for a list tool.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: what a pack actually is. Nothing critical seems missing, though noting that installed vs available are distinguished in the response would round it out.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to compensate for.

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 (knowledge background packs) and clarifies the two result categories: available to install and already installed. It does not name the closely related sibling install_background_packs or export_background_pack, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the second paragraph explains what installing a pack does, which suggests calling this before install_background_packs, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'call install_background_packs to install' statement.

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