list_packages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is raw identifiers rather than display names, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any error conditions, though 'list' implies a read operation.

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the primary action stated first and the alternative guidance second. There is no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and provides an alternative. However, it omits any explanation of the device parameter and any prerequisites for use, such as needing a device identifier from list_devices, leaving a notable gap.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, device, with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'device' refers to or how to obtain valid values, leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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 the tool lists raw Android package names or iOS bundle ids, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from list_apps by noting that list_apps should be preferred for display names, which clarifies its unique role.

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 instruction 'Prefer list_apps() for display names' explicitly names an alternative tool and gives a criterion for choosing between them. This tells the agent when to use this tool (when raw identifiers are needed) and when to use a sibling (for display names).

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