list_packs

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully compensates by disclosing that packs are LOCAL-GPU / FREE and never spend paid API credits. It also describes the content of each entry (family/kind, runtime, workflow+manifest presence, manifest path). This gives the agent a good understanding of the tool's behavior and output structure.

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 paragraph but is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering purpose, content, usage guidance, and related tools. It is concise for the amount of information conveyed, though it could be broken into smaller sections for readability.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return value structure (each entry reports family/kind, runtime, etc.) and provides context about pack usage. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use the results, though it could explicitly state that the output is a list.

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 0 parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details because none are needed. It implicitly confirms that no arguments are required, which is sufficient.

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 that the tool lists bundled installer packs under packs/ and describes what each pack contains (manifest.yaml + workflow.json). It differentiates from sibling listing tools like list_workflows and list_workflow_templates by focusing on packs specifically, though it could be more explicit about the distinction.

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 advises when to use this tool (to list available packs) and when to prefer applying a matching pack over building a generic graph. It also references alternative tools: apply_manifest, panel_load_workflow, read_pack_workflow, and check_workflow_runtime. This provides clear action guidance for the agent.

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