packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: updates are validated against Package Center's catalogue plus configured third-party feeds, and it explains the edge case where update_to is reported as 'not in catalogue'.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the scope (installed packages + fields) is front-loaded before the catalogue-checking caveat. The second sentence is information-rich but runs long, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with an output schema already defining the return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers everything needed: what is listed, where update data comes from, and how the 'not in catalogue' case is represented.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description sensibly spends its budget explaining the returned fields and their provenance instead of parameter syntax.

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 names the resource precisely (installed packages) and the exact fields returned: version, running/stopped status, and available updates including security-release flags. This clearly separates it from siblings like storage_status or cloudsync_status, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource ('installed packages'), so an agent can infer this is the tool for package state. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from any alternative tool.

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