list_packages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: group values vary by workspace, name_filter is case-insensitive, and list_groups should be called first. It doesn't explicitly state the output format or read-only nature, but 'List' implies read-only and the filtering semantics are well covered.

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?

Two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose. The parenthetical example is informative but slightly wordy; overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 absence of output schema and annotations, the description needs to cover return values and all parameters. It provides strong filter guidance and a prerequisite, but omits workspace_root semantics and the shape of returned data, leaving notable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains group, subgroup, and name_filter clearly, but does not mention workspace_root at all, leaving one of four parameters undefined.

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 'List ROS2 packages in the workspace' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on packages rather than groups (list_groups) or dependencies (get_package_dependencies).

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Call list_groups first to see the actual group/subgroup values', providing a clear prerequisite and context for using filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the directional guidance is strong.

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