list_github_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the requirement for an owner (no global search), default package type, and return format (JSON list with metadata). However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which could be relevant for an API tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidelines, args, and returns in a structured format. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context for a simple tool with 2 parameters. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. However, it could improve by mentioning authentication or error handling, but it's largely complete for its complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'owner' as 'GitHub username or organization name' with examples, 'package_type' with default value and options, and clarifies that 'docker' is legacy. This fully documents both parameters effectively.

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' and resource 'packages (including GHCR images) for a GitHub user or organization.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying GitHub packages rather than other package types like npm or Docker images from other sources, making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 includes an explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' section that states when to use it ('You want to find Docker images or other packages hosted on GitHub for a specific user/org') and when not to use it ('GitHub does not support global package search; you must provide an owner'), providing clear guidance and alternatives implicitly by noting the limitation.

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