sf_package_list

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action and does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action verb.

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 tool with three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain parameter purposes, expected output, or operational context, leaving an agent with limited understanding of how to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has three parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not explain any of them. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning to parameters like 'verbose', 'directory', or 'targetDevHub'.

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 a specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'second-generation packages', scoped to 'Dev Hub org'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_package_create and sf_package_install, which are write operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states what it does without contextual usage hints.

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