gateway_admin_list_access_packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the specific authorization requirement 'Requires access:read,' which is useful operational context beyond the annotation. It does not mention default filtering behavior such as include_revoked defaulting to false, but the read-only safety profile is adequately covered.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler; both sentences add information. It is not bloated, though the terse style contributes to missing context.

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?

The tool has four optional parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or default behavior. An agent cannot tell what subject_key/subject_type filter, what include_revoked does, or when this listing differs from sibling access tools. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but input-side guidance is incomplete.

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 by explaining the parameters, but it names none of them. subject_key, subject_type, include_revoked, and limit are left entirely to the schema, whose property titles give only minimal hints. This is a significant gap for an agent deciding what to pass.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('assigned access packages'), clearly identifying this as a read-only listing operation. The word 'assigned' helps separate it from package-catalog siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from gateway_admin_list_access or clarify the subject 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling admin/access tools, such as gateway_admin_list_access or gateway_admin_access_package_catalog. The only added context is the permission requirement 'access:read', which is a precondition rather than a usage rule. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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