veroq_agent_packs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a list with specific fields and costs 1 credit, but does not disclose potential side effects, authorization needs, or behaviors like pagination. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise, using labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, COST, EXAMPLE) to organize information. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage context, return fields, and cost. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it, though it could optionally mention if the list varies per user.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it explains the return fields (slug, name, description, required inputs, credit cost), adding context beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool 'lists available vertical agent packs' and specifies they are 'pre-built agent configurations for specific domains'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'veroq_run_agent' by indicating it should be used before calling that tool.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section that tells the agent to use this tool to discover available packs before invoking 'veroq_run_agent'. This is clear guidance, though it does not mention any alternative or situation to avoid use.

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