list_sticker_packs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces "Read-only" (mildly redundant) but adds genuine value by spelling out the returned pack structure, which no annotation conveys. It doesn't mention pagination or error behavior, but for a parameterless local list that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then compactly covers the empty signature, the return shape, the safety profile, and the downstream siblings. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates by documenting the exact array shape returned, including pack fields and nested sticker fields. An agent has everything needed to call it and consume the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms "No parameters," leaving nothing 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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ("List the sticker packs installed on this Signal account"). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like add_sticker_pack, get_sticker, and upload_sticker_pack without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to the relevant siblings: use packId/sticker id with send_sticker, send_group_sticker or get_sticker, and use add_sticker_pack to install. It gives clear context for the tool's role in the sticker workflow, though it never states an explicit condition for choosing this listing tool over any other alternative.

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