opkg_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List available or installed packages' without mentioning whether this involves network access, what output format to expect, sorting behavior, or any side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the act itself.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable. It earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, with only two optional params and no output schema. The description covers the basic action, but it fails to clarify the default behavior when installed_only is false (does 'available' imply packages not installed, or all package lists?). There is no mention of output format. Given the low complexity, it is marginally adequate but has gaps.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of the two parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Filter string to search package names' and 'If true, only show installed packages'). The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter-level meaning. Per rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 states a specific verb 'List' and resource 'packages', with a scope distinction between 'available' and 'installed' that maps to the installed_only parameter. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like opkg_upgradable and opkg_info, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and fairly specific.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opkg_upgradable or opkg_info. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user is left to infer usage from the name and parameter schema.

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