List packages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the detail that only package names are listed (not versions or other metadata), which is useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as ordering, defaults, or potential side effects beyond the read-only nature.

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 single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and subject. There is zero redundant wording, making it maximally concise and easy to parse.

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 listing tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks essential context about the parameters (filter and serial) and any output format details. The absence of an output schema increases the burden on the description, which it does not fully meet.

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%, and the description gives no explanation of the 'filter' or 'serial' parameters. The description does not compensate at all for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent without clues about how to use them. This is a significant gap for a tool with two optional parameters.

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 'List installed package names' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('installed package names'), precisely stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'inspect' or 'openApp' by focusing on the enumeration of installed packages. No ambiguity.

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 implicitly indicates usage when one needs to see installed packages, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or context about the optional parameters, so the guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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