system_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 implies a read-only listing but does not confirm safety, disclose required permissions, output format, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, minimal behavioral information is given.

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 very short (one line), but it is written in Indonesian while the tool name and system are presumably English, reducing clarity. It is concise in length but not in communicative effectiveness, as it lacks a verb and proper structure.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source. It barely covers the resource and fields but does not clarify the action (list/get), return type, or any usage constraints. It is minimally complete for a simple listing tool but leaves significant gaps.

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 input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information; it only states the fields returned, which is sufficient.

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 is a noun phrase in Indonesian ('RouterOS installed packages (name, version, enabled/disabled)') rather than an actionable statement. It lacks a verb like 'list' or 'get', making the tool's purpose ambiguous. The name 'system_packages' helps but does not substitute for a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools (e.g., address_lists, dns_static) but no differentiation. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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