cork_get_software_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by clarifying that this is a non-installing, listing-only operation and that returned package_id values are meant for later dispatch. It could add more about pagination or other response traits, but the schema already covers pagination parameters.

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 compact and well-structured: it states the core purpose first, then the filtering options, then the critical return-value/installation caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the key return artifact (package_id) and the tool's boundary (no install). It is largely complete for a simple list-with-filters tool, though it could briefly mention the expected response shape beyond package_id.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents page, search, page_size, and package_manager_key. The description adds modest value by restating search as substring matching and package_manager_key as a filter, but it does not substantially expand beyond the 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 verb 'List', the resource 'software packages', and narrows the scope to supported package managers (WinGet, Chocolatey). It also distinguishes this tool from sibling inventory tools by framing the output as package_id values for future install dispatch.

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 the intended use case: listing installable packages and returning IDs for future install dispatch. It also clarifies that the tool does not perform installation itself, which prevents misuse. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with siblings like software vulnerabilities or installer history.

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