ghg-ledger__list_factor_packs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, idempotence, or any authentication needs.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output details. It is front-loaded with the key action 'List' and enumerates the specific fields, with no wasted words.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear list of output fields, making it fairly self-contained. However, it could explain broader context like how the list is sorted or filtered.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description adds no conflicting information.

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 factor packs and specifies the information included (version, regions, years, activity types, GWP set, MVP coverage). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_factor_pack' tool, though it could be more explicit about listing all packs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_factor_pack'. There is no context about prerequisites, filtering, or when listing is appropriate.

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