List packets

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, but the description goes further by disclosing that packet bodies are never returned, defaults to both directions and at most 50 results, and that private records require a server flag and produce a NOTCH_PRIVATE_HIDDEN warning rather than failing. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with critical behavioral notes. Every clause earns its place, delivering high density without verbosity.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: ordering, default limit, direction default, privacy handling, and return content (metadata and paths, not bodies). It also notes the warning behavior for private records. This is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description adds crucial semantic caveats for 'to', 'since', and 'fromProject' by explicitly stating they are 'accepted but not applied' by the server, requiring client-side filtering. It also clarifies the meaning of 'includePrivate' and its warning behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 packets in the store, ordered newest first, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_packet by saying the purpose is 'to find an ID before reading one with get_packet'. It also specifies that it returns metadata and on-disk paths, never packet bodies, giving a precise scope.

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 gives a clear usage context: use it to find an ID before reading a packet with get_packet. It also explains default behavior and a privacy prerequisite (server flag --include-private). However, it does not explicitly contrast this with the sibling list_inbox tool, so there is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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