list_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what output it returns, or how the serial parameter behaves (e.g., default device). This leaves important behavioral context undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action and subject. It includes the key optional behaviors (filtering) without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps: it doesn't describe the return value format, the default behavior when serial is omitted, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. These omissions reduce completeness, especially with no annotations to fill them.

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 complete descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a brief summary of the filter options ('by name or package type'), which does not go beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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's function: 'List all installed application packages on the device' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions filtering options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., list_forwards, list_devices).

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 usage by stating what the tool does and its filter options, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. There are no exclusion criteria or named alternative tools, though the unique purpose makes it fairly obvious.

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