List community packages

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: it mentions the 100-record cap, exact omission reporting, the package-list permission requirement, and that metadata is untrusted with emails redacted. These are substantive behavioral traits not present in the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, limits/omissions, alternative, permissions, and safety. No wasted words; information is front-loaded.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with a rich annotation set and output schema, this description covers all necessary context: scope, limits, permission, trust level, and relationship to siblings. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Though the schema has zero parameters, the description explicitly states 'accepts no arguments, filters, cursor, or limit.' This prevents the agent from assuming pagination or filtering capabilities and fully clarifies parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List bounded metadata for installed n8n community packages.' It also explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool by directing users to n8n_list_node_types for workflow type observation, making its scope unmistakable.

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?

It provides an explicit alternative ('Use n8n_list_node_types for types observed in workflows') and clearly states non-behaviors ('does not download or inspect contents', 'never installs, updates, or removes packages'). This helps the agent decide when to choose this tool over others.

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