whodb_platform_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call is non-destructive to session defaults via per-call workspace targeting, which is useful, but it omits anything about result volume, pagination or ordering that the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the workspace behavior second. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence largely restates schema-level workspace semantics rather than adding new information.

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 read-only, zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. But in a sibling set crowded with near-identical package tools, the description lacks the disambiguation an agent needs to confidently route here.

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 100%, so every parameter (id, fields, search, workspace and its nested members) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax or interaction detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('List hosted package versions') scoped to the selected project. However, it never differentiates itself from the many similar siblings (whodb_platform_package, whodb_platform_package_library, whodb_platform_project_active_versions), and the name 'packages' versus the description's 'package versions' leaves the granularity (package vs. version) slightly ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only contextual sentence concerns the workspace parameter ('per-call targeting without changing defaults'), which is parameter mechanics rather than task routing. An agent facing package_library/package/package_installations gets no help choosing.

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