pack_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Enumerate" implies a read-only listing and the embedded CLI equivalent (`pack status <file>`) adds useful context, but it never explicitly declares read-only behavior, nor does it address behavior for large result sets or what happens when the project has no packs.

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 core enumeration purpose, followed by returned fields and the filter hint. Efficient, with only mild density from the inline CLI reference; every clause carries 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?

For a 5-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (ids, selection flags, dependency status). The remaining gap is behavioral (read-only confirmation, pagination/limit interplay) rather than structural.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented (limit, query, output, project_id, max_components). The description only reinforces the `query` substring filter, adding marginal value over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Enumerate") and resource ("every software pack/component visible to the project") and lists the fields returned (pack ids, component ids, selected flags, dependency status). It is clearly a read/status operation distinct from pack_enable/pack_disable/pack_validate, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Filter with `query`" is the only usage hint; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion pointing the agent to pack_validate or firmware_packages instead. Usage is implied by the enumeration framing rather than spelled out.

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