List packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, return format, or that it lists all packages vs. filtered. It only restates the domain.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior, and the single sentence does not effectively communicate anything beyond the tool's name.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what is returned, how pagination works, or any nuances of filtering. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.

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 86%, so most parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-level explanation, but the schema carries the responsibility. Baseline 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 is a noun phrase ('Packages published to the project registry') that does not explicitly state the action (listing). It relies on the tool name and title to convey the operation. It adds minimal scope information (project registry) but does not distinguish from similar tools like gitlab_list_registry_repositories.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about use cases, filters, or when to prefer this over other list tools (e.g., gitlab_list_registry_repositories).

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