List AI Pack growth history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does contribute meaningfully by stating that private memory contents are not exposed. This is a non-obvious privacy behavior that an agent cannot infer from the schema. As a read-style listing operation, it also implies no destructive side effects, though explicit permission or rate-limit details are absent.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned data categories and the privacy boundary. Every clause adds useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return data categories: growth checkpoints, active checkpoint, and hosted slot/byte usage and limits. It also clarifies an important boundary by excluding private memory contents. It does not describe ordering, pagination, or prerequisites, but these are less critical for such a straightforward read operation.

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 covers the only parameter, productId, with 100% description coverage, so the schema already provides the necessary semantic meaning. The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies a distinct resource: growth checkpoints, the active checkpoint, and hosted slot/byte usage and limits. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_ai_pack_runtime_profile or list_owned_ai_packs by naming the exact data domain. The added qualifier about not exposing private memory contents further sharpens 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 implies when the tool is appropriate—when an agent needs growth history, active checkpoint, or slot/byte usage details—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. The privacy caveat hints at a selection criterion, but no sibling alternatives or exclusions are named.

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